Re: [gnso-res-sga] DRAFT Subgroup A report

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also share Milton's and Ross's view on this issue.

Thanks,
Robin


Milton Mueller wrote:

> Thanks, I believe some adjustment in the level of support indicated
> would be necessary. I would be surprised if I was the only one to feel
> that way, and Ross's response confirms that. 
>
>  
>
> > > > "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> 6/5/2007 9:12 AM >>>
> > > >        
> I will take this as a request that AGREED be changed to SUPPORT and
> that
> Milton's assertion be presented as an ALTERNATIVE VIEW.  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx] 
> On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:07 AM
> To: Peter Fabulous.com; gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx; Metalitz, Steven
> Subject: RE: [gnso-res-sga] DRAFT Subgroup A report
>
>
>
>  
>
> > It was AGREED that if there has been a failure of the RELAY 
> > process (including a failure to forward a response from the 
> > RNH within the specified time periods), and the OPOC has 
> > not REVEALED RNH contact data, then the registrar should do so 
> > by conveying full contact details to the requester.
> >    
>
> Whether or not a registrant's contact details are revealed is an
> "access" question and was considered by subgroup B. While there is
> some
> legitimate overlap in scope here, 
> I can tell you, based both on discussions in the B group and
> discussions for the preceding three years, that the idea that any
> person
> for any reasons can get contact details simply by requesting it of an
> OPoC is not going to happen. 
>
>
>
>
>