My personal feedback to Griffin's input is provided in the bullets below. For Question 1 he suggests adding the hosting provider: "I might also add the web hosting provider associated with the domain name, which can be identified using the name server data." * If the hosting provider can be identified using the name server data and name server data is in the RDS, why would the hosting provider need to be identified in the RDS? It's a different issue if the name server data is not in the RDS. For the first part of Question 2 he says: "Per note above, if we add hosting provider, the purpose would be to determine the identity of the web hosting provider associated with any content located at the domain name and what is the hosting provider's jurisdiction." * Note that Question 2 asks what the objective would be for identifying or contacting the hosting provider if the hosting provider was included in the answer to question 1. He is not saying that a purpose of the RDS is to identify hosting providers. For the second part of Question 2 he says: "We might consider also adding "To request that a domain name be cancelled, transferred, or any content hosted thereunder be removed"" * What I think he is doing is giving examples of legal actions that could be taken. Maybe it would be preferable to word it something like this: "Possible legal actions could include but not be limited to: cancelling the domain name registration, transferring the domain name registration, removing content hosted for the domain name." For the first main bullet under the response to Question 3, he suggested adding "take other specific actions as requested or directed by the legal authority" for each of the categories; as above, also add a category for hosting providers". * Does anyone object to adding this? If so, please explain why. * Note that hosting providers would only be added if it is added for Question 1. I hope my personal thoughts motivate responses from team members. Chuck From: Griffin Barnett [mailto:Griffin@Winterfeldt.law] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:06 AM To: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] DT6 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Thanks for the reminder Chuck. Please find some comments in the attached. Best, Griffin _____ <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 griffin@winterfeldt.law <mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: Gnso-rds-pdp-6 [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 12:03 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-6@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rds-pdp-6] DT6 Answers to Questions - First Draft for DT Review Importance: High It would be very helpful if each of you could provide your first thoughts on the attached draft TODAY. Note that it is just slightly over one page long. Chuck
