RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6

[Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 6:43 PM -0400 8/9/07, Michael Warnecke wrote:

> ... If we cannot
>agree, as a baseline proposition, that an OPOC must consent to being an
>OPOC, it calls into question the credibility of the OPOC system.

I don't at all see why this should be the case.

I can envision an OPoC *system* that is entirely credible without requiring
anyone (other than a registrant) to ensure consent of an OPoC.  If the
registrant bears the responsibility and liability for the OPoC's actions,
then it is in the registrant's interest to choose an OPoC who consents to
fulfilling that role for the registrant.  If the registrant fails to do so,
the registrant can bear the full liability if and when the OPoC fails to
perform expected tasks.  If a registrant designates an OPoC in bad faith,
that can and will come back to haunt the registrant eventually, when the
OPoC fails to perform its tasks.

This consent requirement constitutes unnecessary and spurious complexity
that just bogs down the whole system and creates disagreement among us.  If
the mission here is to erode consensus, then it is quite effective.

Dan

PS -- In the event that anyone were to be held formally liable for explicit
(and perhaps formal) OPoC *consent* in and of itself, separate from the
*tasks* that an OPoC will perform, it is perfectly credible for the system
to assign that responsibility to the registrant exclusively.  But I see no
need for a formal consent requirement, because the functional incentives
can be enough to establish this if we design the rest of the system
properly.