Good morning everyone, I just took one more read through and picked up on one very small adjustment to the first bullet point under tasks. To clarify the language (since there was a bit of reptition) I'd suggest adjusting to the following: During acquisition, purchasers not only need to find out who they should contact, but also the domain name’s registration history to confirm any prior associations *and to ensure that there are *no issues with buying a domain name "fit for purpose." Thanks all! - Erica Erica Varlese | .blog Shepherd @ KKWT Email: erica@my.blog Skype: evarlese On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com> wrote:

All,

Attached and below are notes from our call AND an updated draft document.

· *Action:* All DT4 team members to review Tuesday, make any final comments (including suggested replacement text for any concerns raised) by end of day

· *Action:* All DT4 team members to confirm agreement on finalized document Wednesday, so that output can then be shared with full WG as input to ICANN60

When commenting on the attached v4 document, please use in-line comments and/or redlined edits to suggest any changes you feel should be made before sharing this output with the full WG.

Note the EWG table is still contained in the attached v4 for easy reference during document review, but will be removed from the next draft.

Thanks all,

Lisa

*Notes and Action Items from DT#4 Call – 23 October*

1) Review draft purpose (v3 displayed in AC)

2) Develop one paragraph summary definition of Business Domain Name Purchase/Sale

*Questions/Edits to Definition: *

· Is it important to tease out the different kinds of buyers - small business owners, corporations, domain brokers?

· Replace "and small businesses..." with "and third-parties (i.e., small businesses...) wishing to purchase domain names...

· Delete sentence "This includes cases where..." as it is covered in the first sentence and expanded later in the definition.

*Questions/Edits to Tasks:*

· Add to second bullet and split remainder into second bullet. Result is:

o 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 to confirm no issues with buying a domain name "fit for purpose."

o Additionally, WHOIS history provides information about merchantability (e.g., as When buying a house, buyers do a title search to certify ownership and ownership custody chain, etc.). Similarly, domain name buyers commonly search WHOIS records before and after sale to verify the old and new Registrant are accurately recorded.

· Third bullet replace "if they have a relationship" by "confirm they have a relationship"

· Final bullet: "knowing WHO buyers or sellers are working with" (add "who")

· Add new bullet:

o During a purchase or acquisition of a privately registered domain, the WHOIS lookup allows a potential buyer to determine how to contact the current domain name user/owner, either through a privacy/proxy service or through a legal contact.

*Questions/Edits to Users:*

· Addition of IP Holder (replacing Trademark Holder) and LEA - the first to broaden, the last to link to follow on activities

· Third-party buyer (e.g., small biz owner, corporation, IP holder) - does it matter what type of third-party buyer is it to defining their needs for registration data? Does giving examples help or hurt in explaining the purpose to others?

· Agreed to replace user definitions as follows:

o Third-party Buyer - A third party buyer is any individual or entity (e.g., small business owners, corporations, and domain name brokers) that are attempting to buy a domain name from a registrant.

o Domain Broker - A broker who may be purchasing, facilitating a purchase or sale, or facilitating the exchange of monies for a purchase a sale on behalf of a registrant or third party purchaser.

o Registrant – retain as given in v3

3) Plan to complete draft output by Thursday 26 October

· *Action:* Staff to redistribute v4 document today *(ATTACHED)*

· *Action:* All to review Tuesday, make any final comments (including suggested replacement text for any concerns raised) by end of day

· *Action:* All to confirm agreement on finalized document Wednesday, so that output can then be shared with full WG as input to ICANN60

4) Identify team members who will attend ICANN60 sessions:

· Saturday 28 October: Lisa in person; Brian, Benjamin, Fabricio, Sam remotely

· Wednesday 1 November: Erica and Lisa in person; Brian, Benjamin, Fabricio, Sam remotely

· Erica volunteers to introduce the team's output if that can be done Wednesday; otherwise, we will need to select a remote volunteer to introduce the team’s output on Saturday

*ICANN60 Meeting Information*

This RDS PDP WG will hold two sessions at ICANN60 in Abu Dhabi:

Saturday October 28, 2017 (08:30 - 12:00 local time)

· Session Abstract: http://sched.co/CbIZ

· Adobe Connect https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hallbc

· English Audio http://stream.icann.org:8000/abu60-hallbc-en.m3u

Wednesday November 1, 2017 (16:00 - 18:30 local time)

· Session Abstract: http://sched.co/CbF3

· Adobe Connect https://paticipate.icann.org/abu60-capitalsuite1

· English Audio http://stream.icann.org:8000/abu60-capitalsuite1-en.m3u

_______________________________________________ Gnso-rds-pdp-4 mailing list Gnso-rds-pdp-4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-4