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

["Fares, David" <DFares@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

If the OPOC proposal were to be approved and implemented, it would
create new obligations/burdens for many different groups.  I do not see
why registrars should be spared from assuming new obligations as well in
order to implement the OPOC proposal, which originally was presented by
registrars.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 5:40 AM
To: Dan Krimm
Cc: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6

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  


This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or
confidential information. It is intended solely for the named
addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you
may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone.
Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its
attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any
content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to
the official business of News America Incorporated or its
subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any
of them. No representation is made that this email or its
attachments are without defect.