[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions
james at cyberinvasion.net
Wed May 11 20:19:59 UTC 2016
I think that’s a good point and something that we should not in our documentation that the purpose of the tech contact maybe should need redefining during our work.
On 11/05/2016, 21:13, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Andrew Sullivan" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:58:30PM +0000, James Gannon wrote:
>> I think that there is an important distinction between the registrant who may or may not be operating the underlying infrastructure and the actual provider and operator of the infrastructure.
>Yep. I've tried to be careful in pointing out that not all the fields
>we have now need be collected, or shared everywhere, or available to
>any querying agent. It seems clear that _someone_ needs to have the
>knowledge about who has registered a name.
>The "anonymous access" part, however, is what is often called today a
>"tech contact": that's whom I need to be able to reach to try to sort
>out the issue.
>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg