Hi all, as I was on the road earlier, I could not read Steves rebuttal of my points in the chat, but I was surprised that this basic point gave rise to one, so maybe I was unclear in how I presented it. To scope an issue with accuracy that can be used as a basis for the work of a future PDP, we do need evidence that there currently, right now there is an issue with the accuracy that is so impactful that it warrants setting aside volunteer and ICANN staff time to find a solution. So far, we have heard incidental evidence that can or cannot provide an insight, but does not allow to draw a general conclusion. In the end, the cases that give rise to such reports could be looked at as edge cases as all abuse essentially is an edge case to all the non-abusive registrations that significantly outnumber those being used in an abusive manner. To effectively lead to a PDP that can make meaningful policy recommendations, we must first identify a general problem that this policy should address. The more defined the issue is scoped, the better. If on the other hand, we cannot even identify a general problem, is there a need for policy work at all? I was wondering about Alans statement that there is historical data that shows issues with accuracy, but having looked at the same data sets from previous ARS studies, the opposite seems to be the case. From round to round, the ARS data has shown the trend towards more accuracy, e.g. accuracy has been improving as a result of the 2013 RAA. Moreover, the contactibility rating of registration records showed that almost all data sets fulfilled the purpose of contactibility. Side note: Alan also alluded to cases of testing the forwarding functionalities of various contracted parties, but have such failures been brought to the attention of the affected contracted parties so they could analyse and fix those issues? Or to the attention of ICANN compliance? If these cases have been as common as indicated, should there not have been a significant number of reports in the recent compliance updates and/or compliance action to address these deficiencies? -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached.