Re: [gnso-res-sga] Proposed discussion outline

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This seems to be an expansion of our sub-group's task.   I don't think 
we can do whatever we want because it not specifically excluded, but 
rather, we are obligated to stick to our mandate.

Robin


Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> I disagree, I don't see that subgroup A is excluded from discussing
> whether one of the OPOC's responsibilities ought to be to disclose
> contact information in some circumstances. Access via the OPOC could
> coexist with access via whatever system is devised in subgroup B, which
> could be focused on different requesters (e.g., law enforcement).  
>
> Steve  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:46 PM
> To: gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx; Metalitz, Steven
> Subject: Re: [gnso-res-sga] Proposed discussion outline
>
> I notice that there is a substantial discussion point here on "Reveal."
> I would view that as out of scope for subgroup A. When you talk about
> the OPoC revealing the shielded data elements, you are talking about
> access proposals. Those proposals are supposed to be covered by subgroup
> b. 
>
> The point, again, is not to be bureaucratic. The point is to avoid
> duplicating effort and coming up with incompatible proposals and
> concepts. The conditions under which an OPoC provides a third party
> access to the current contact information on the Registered Name Holder
> raises all the questions we are discussing in subgroup b: what third
> parties have a legitimate claim to see the data, who certifies them as
> legitimate, etc. 
>
>  
>
> > > > "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> 5/22/2007 12:18 PM >>>
> > > >        
> Subgroup A participants:
> Attached (in Word format) please find an outline I have prepared to
> structure further discussion of the pending proposals from Steve
> Delbianco ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-res-sga/msg00007.html)
> and
> Chris Gibson (
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-res-sga/msg00027.html).
> It follows the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, HOW format, but reflects that the
> first
> couple of issues have been more extensively discussed than the last. 
> It
> tries to reflect the discussion on the list and on our calls but of
> course there may be issues I have overlooked.  It is intended to
> stimulate and structure further discussion, not provide answers.  I
> hope
> it is useful for our call tomorrow, and welcome your responses on list
> prior to that (as well as any additional proposals or further comments
> on the two that have been put forward).   
>
> Steve Metalitz     
>
>
>
> -
>
>
>