Drafting Team 4 final output
Team, Having seen no specific edits proposed on our mailing list today, attached please find the final clean version of this purpose definition. Per our plan, I will share with the full WG mailing list Friday, as input to next Tuesday's WG call. Best, Lisa
Thanks Lisa, I got stuck traveling again and large parts of Canada have no connectivity, which is okay since they are areas with no people, and trees don't have computers. The only change I didn't manage to sneak in (not that important) was to change the "i.e." to an "e.g." in the Registrant Contact. Sam On 11/10/2017 1:02 AM, Lisa Phifer wrote:
Team,
Having seen no specific edits proposed on our mailing list today, attached please find the final clean version of this purpose definition.
Per our plan, I will share with the full WG mailing list Friday, as input to next Tuesday's WG call.
Best, Lisa
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-4 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-4
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道,贫且贱焉,耻也。邦无道,富且贵焉,耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
Attached is a redline containing two updates -
Thanks, and my apologies for being absent for most of the DT4 work ... 1. When making purchase queries about a domain name, registration data is used to determine the current Registrant and how to contact them. ^ This really only applies to _unsolicited purchase queries_ (as those soliciting them list the domain as for sale directly or through one of the many 2ndary market platforms) and so contact is handled/determined by that platform and not through any data in WHOIS It's also the source/cause of a significant number of fraud/scam attempts including 2 extremely common issues: * the escrow / valuation scam * the reverse name hijacking scam And I think it's important we hilight the problems/risks 3. During acquisition, purchasers not only need to find out who they should contact, but also the domain name's registration history to confirm prior associations and to ensure that there are no issues with buying a domain name "fit for purpose." ^ I'm not sure I understand this completely as there is no such thing as a "domain name's registration history" as such, although it can be implied or correlated from other data in was as described [ I understand the concept, just not the exact wording ] I think "history of the domain name" would be better o Additionally, WHOIS history is significant for understanding a domain name's reputation via prior registrant WHOIS data. For example, brokers may update WHOIS data before offering domain names for sale; in such cases, assessing the domain name's reputation requires looking beyond current WHOIS data to identify past registrants. ^ The idea of reputation when buying a domain has far more to do with IP/hosting history than WHOIS data, use of the domain in spamming, hosting certain types of content, use with phishing scams etc - who owned it previously is mostly irrelevant compared to what it was used for It's more like ... Some domain purchasers will treat the history of a domain as potentially significant, this can include: * Historical WHOIS data such as who are the previous registrants * History of hosting/ip-address changes and any content hosted * Inclusion of the domain in lists of spamming/phishing/scamming domains etc 4. Registration data is also used during due diligence research to identify the current Registrant of the domain name, confirm whether they have a relationship with the Registrant Organization, and to determine other domain names with which buyers or sellers are associated. ^ It wouldnt identify domains which "buyers" are associated with, so "which buyers or sellers are associated." should be "which sellers may be associated." 5. In summary, registration data: informs buyers and sellers and those they are working with; facilitates verification that parties can sell/buy the domain name; makes it possible to carry out the purchase/sale transaction; and enables verification (with a third-party) that the domain name has actually changed hands before final payment is made from escrow. ^ registration data doesn't "makes it possible to carry out the purchase/sale transaction;" (in any way) so can be deleted ^ 3rd-party escrows haven't historically relied on contact data updates as it's quite possible for it to be wrong/outdated/hidden (I've sold domains and 3 years later am still getting the WDRP notices each year showing they've not yet updated the contacts) although that may depend on the escrow service as a number of them are registrars so determining change of control is simpler I'd suggest changing "and enables verification" to "can assist with" Domain Names for Specified Registrant EWG recommendation to facilitate transfer of all domain names owned by a single registrant or company in the case of a merger/transition. ^ This doesnt currently exist, so I dont think we should be including it in that section Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
As such, I believe it would be unfair to other team members to make substantive changes to the team's output without an opportunity for team review and discussion. However, some of Rob's suggested edits appeared to be simple clarifications and likely uncontroversial.
I'm more than happy with that version. Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
It looks good me. Thanks Rob & Lisa, Sam On 11/10/2017 8:15 PM, Lisa Phifer wrote:
Rob and all,
Attached is the final redlined version of this drafting team's output.
Drafting team work has already completed, and today was the due date for final output submission. Many if not all of the topics addressed in Rob's comments were already discussed by this drafting team and/or the WG in previous meetings. As such, I believe it would be unfair to other team members to make substantive changes to the team's output without an opportunity for team review and discussion. However, some of Rob's suggested edits appeared to be simple clarifications and likely uncontroversial.
For these reasons, I have applied only simple clarifications (redlined in the attached) in this final redlined version. I left more significant comments for Rob to offer during full WG discussion, as work progresses on refining definitions for all purposes the WG may agree are legitimate.
*If any team member has a strong objection to any of the edits redlined in the attached, please raise your objection by 23:00 UTC Saturday. Any edits with objections by that time will be backed out so that the rationale for and against the edit can be discussed in the next pass on all purposes at the full WG level.
*I hope you will find this a reasonable compromise which honors the work the team has put into this output so far while still (nearly) meeting the due date for drafting team completion.
Best, Lisa
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道,贫且贱焉,耻 也。邦无道,富且贵焉,耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
participants (3)
-
Lisa Phifer -
Rob Golding -
Sam Lanfranco