Per the thread below, attached you will find redlined and clean version 6 of this drafting team’s output, renaming this purpose simply “Domain Name Purchase/Sale”. A clean v6 has been loaded onto the wiki and will be the version presented to the WG today at 16:15 local time here in Abu Dhabi. This is it for today. We’ll consider any further edits after today’s meeting, in our final drafting team call next week. Thanks all Lisa From: gnso-rds-pdp-4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 1:09 AM To: 'Sam Lanfranco'; gnso-rds-pdp-4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-4] Your inputs needed If there are no objections expressed to these edits, I will apply them to the draft first thing in the morning here in Abu Dhabi. From: gnso-rds-pdp-4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:45 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rds-pdp-4] Your inputs needed All, Doing my best to keep up. Here are my comments. * I agree that the three references to "business domain" should be change to just "domain". * Two references are in the header "RDS Purpose: Business Domain Name Purchase/Sale", * One is in the "Tasks: Parties purchasing or selling a business domain name often engage in the following tasks. " * Omit all three. As for the questions around other "entities involved in transactions", clients such as Escrow and Finance companies, and Individual lenders, I would argue that Tasks 3, and 4, as well as some minor wording change for Task 6, covers those cases. In my view, Task 3: "fit for purpose" and Task 4: "merchantability" cover and include KYC (know your customer) and AML (anti money laundering). For Task 6 I proposed a slight wording change: * In summary, registration data: informs buyers and sellers, and those they are working with; <the rest as written> In short, I prefer "fit for purpose", "merchantability" and "those they are working with" to encompass legitimate third parties to the transaction. I fear that making an explicit list leaves the door open to "exceptionalism" in that parties explicitly on the list may presume special (exceptional) status and legitimate third parties not explicitly on the list may face exclusion. Sam L.