Hello David and fellow certifiable team members, I've had a very relaxing 3 week vacation, so I'm a little behind, but I've read through the instructions so I'll make some suggestions. Firstly before I comment on the open questions I'd like to make an observation based on the feedback and comments we received when presenting our prior findings. Depending on their perspectives and experience, many WG members did not truly understand that we had restricted our scope to the use of registration data in the work flow of obtaining a certificate (from a CA) for a domain name. We'd also strictly followed the documented workflow agreed to by the CA/Browser forum. No independent or alternate certificate allocation workflows were considered. It is my opinion that the narrow scoping was appropriate then and remains so now. However it may be required that we continue to clarify this point in any submission we make to the WG. Here's some thoughts on the questions: Bearing in mind that the only purpose registration data is used in the CA/Browser forum guidelines is for proof of domain control. --=Who associated with the domain name registration needs to be identified and/or contacted for this purpose?=-- Someone who controls the domain name. A contact filling a technical or administrative role would seem to be the most appropriate. Note that direct contact is not strictly required to deliver proof of domain control and remains a single option amongst many alternatives for such proof. Therefore the answer to this question could also quite legitimately be "no one needs to be identified and/or contacted for this purpose". --=What is the objective achieved by identifying and contacting each of those entities?=-- Proof that the request for the certificate is supported by an entity that has control of the the domain in question. --=What might be expected with regard to that domain name?=-- I have nothing to add here. -- Kal Feher Neustar Inc. Melbourne, Australia From: Gnso-rds-pdp-3 <gnso-rds-pdp-3-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-3-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Cake <dave@davecake.net<mailto:dave@davecake.net>> Date: Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 08:57 To: "gnso-rds-pdp-3@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-3@icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-3@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-3@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rds-pdp-3] Reconvening Domain Name Certification team If you were on the call earlier, you would have heard that the leadership of the Next Generation RDS PDP WG have decided to reconvene the separate Drafting Teams, including the team for Domain Name Certification. We would like to take a week to prepare for discussion at the face to face meeting at iCANN 61. We would like to reopen discussion, and the new questions we would like the team to answer are: Who associated with the domain name registration needs to be identified and/or contacted for this purpose? What is the objective achieved by identifying and contacting each of those entities? What might be expected with regard to that domain name? All the teams are requested to not restrict themselves to existing data elements, but try to answer the questions conceptually and explicitly. To prep for ICANN61, it is imperative that we discuss these questions and produce output over the next week – ideally by 5 March but no later than 7 March. We know this is a short timeframe. To learn more about this assignment, please read these instructions: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79432608/Drafting%20Team%20... If you did not attend today’s WG call, you can catch up by reading or listening to the call recording/notes/transcript: https://community.icann.org/x/oAu8B We need to get started immediately — within 24 hours ideally. We may also be having some new volunteers join the team. David