ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-whois-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6
  • From: Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:39:36 +0200

I agree with Dan. A formal recorded consent of the OPOC would, as
already pointed out by several of my registrar colleagues, be a 
very big change in the registration process of every registrar and
reseller. As the registrant is finally responsible for all contacts
attached to a registered name it should be in his sole responsibility
to make sure of the consent of the OPOC.

Best,

tom

Am 09.08.2007 schrieb Dan Krimm:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w  



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>