[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Contactability, PBC and required contact methods....

[Winterfeldt, Brian J.]

Dear colleagues:

We fully support the points raised by Alex below.  Registrant contactability is an essential function of RDS, and the Working Group has agreed as such.  Therefore, we agree it may be necessary to revisit the preliminary conclusion that provision by the registrant of additional points of contact for a P/P domain name (e.g. admin/tech/legal) should be merely optional.  We look forward to further consideration of this issue within the WG.

Best regards,

Brian, Phil, and Griffin

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP


On Aug 23, 2017, at 3:30 PM, Deacon, Alex <Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org>> wrote:

Apologies for the typo in the subject.   Should be Contactability not Contractibility.

Alex


From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Deacon, Alex" <Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org<mailto:Alex_Deacon at mpaa.org>>
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 11:56 AM
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Contactability, PBC and required contact methods....

Hi All,

I’ve been thinking about the discussion we had on this week’s call and the preliminary WG agreements that resulted from those discussions.  E.g.

Preliminary WG Agreement: To improve contactability with the domain name registrant (or authorized agent of the registrant), the RDS must be capable of supporting at least one alternative contact method as an optional field.

Preliminary WG Agreement: PBC types identified (Admin, Legal, Technical, Abuse, Proxy/Privacy, Business) must be supported by the RDS but optional for registrants to provide

While I understand these are preliminary and high-level non-concrete concepts I wanted to point out that the main idea of the these preliminary WG agreements was to “improve contractability”.   My concern is that these agreements do exactly the opposite.

In today’s WHOIS we have 3 mandatory contact types (a.k.a. PBC): registrant, admin, tech.   Each of those three types mandate at 3 contact methods (email, phone and physical mail) and allow for one optional contact method (Fax).     i.e. 3*3=9 potential methods to initiate contact with the registrant.  (And before you respond I do understand that often these contact types contain the same contact info.)      Even when all 3 contact types are the same there exists 3 separate contact methods that increase contactability (1*3=3)

Today’s preliminary agreements indicate that we could end up with a single contact type (Registrant) with a single contact method (email address).     i.e. 1*1=1

This will clearly will decrease contactability – not increase it.     I think we have more work to do here….

Alex

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rds-pdp-wg&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7C17fbaa3733f24e4d818908d4ea5d54c2%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=Qw1BKEaOlmudjV4t0yVgg1%2BEqmVYIvAUyfqybrIcObE%3D&reserved=0

__________________________________________________________________________


This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170824/28a955fb/attachment-0001.html>