Re: [gnso-res-sga] DRAFT Subgroup A report
- To: Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-res-sga] DRAFT Subgroup A report
- From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:08:03 -0700
I also share Milton's and Ross's view on this issue.
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.
I will take this as a request that AGREED be changed to SUPPORT and
"Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> 6/5/2007 9:12 AM >>>
Milton's assertion be presented as an ALTERNATIVE VIEW.
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
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
for any reasons can get contact details simply by requesting it of an
OPoC is not going to happen.