[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Reminder of rationale for ORD (was Re: Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date)

[Greg Aaron]

Thank you; very helpful.  So the problem this field is trying to solve is: (high-value) domain names that have somehow lapsed or been deleted due to subversion of the registrar account.

There are three ICANN Consensus Policies in place that were specifically designed to help prevent and/or mitigate that problem:
1.  The Expired Registration Recovery Policy (a.k.a. Redemption Grace Period)
2.  Expired Domain Deletion Policy  
3.  Restored Names Accuracy Policy

UDRP and/or URS may apply in some cases too.  

And there is the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. Uunauthorized transfers, i.e. domain theft, are a bigger problem than malicious deletions.  And the Additional Whois Information Policy marks domains hat have been deleted and are in redemption and delete period.

So the problem has been covered by a great deal of policy-making.  No one has demonstrated that the above policies are failures and that an additional one is needed to solve the problem described above.

All best,
--Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:43 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Reminder of rationale for ORD (was Re: Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date)

Hi,

I just want to remind everyone about why the Original Registration Date was proposed in the first place.

The idea was that, if you have a domain name that is of interest, you might not realise that there is something fishy going on in case someone else has registered the name.  This has happened on several occasions, where high-value names have somehow lapsed or been deleted due to subversion of the registrar account.  The idea is, I think, that an indication of the "original registration date" would allow one to notice that the name in question might not be the one expected, and so it is useful for anti-abuse purposes.  (This is of particular importance for certain kinds of names where one might get automatic software updates and so on.  Such names have been targets of this sort of thing in the past.)

I can see that there is some merit in this idea, so while I was opposed to the ORD on the grounds of data hygiene, the plain indicator or else the counter seemed like a way to achieve a similar thing.

I am not wedded to the proposal, however, and I will note that once we start this there are a number of other obvious anti-abuse items we might invent (including counters of "internal" and "external"
transfers, rapid changes of DNS or contact info, and so on).  I'm a little concerned about where the matter ends once we start on this path.

Nevertheless, I think it's important we have before us the reasons why the ORD was proposed in the first place.  It's clearly a worthy use case.

Best regards

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg