[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sat Sep 30 16:30:11 UTC 2017
Surely there are many other ways an individual could prove the original
registration date of a domain, other than it being in the WHOIS?
Stephanie Perrin
On 2017-09-28 18:22, jonathan matkowsky wrote:
> There is a lot going on in the last week, and I am *still* playing
> catch up.
>
> I apologize with the religious high holidays at the end of last week
> and my travel right before that, I dropped the ball, but I want to
> emphasize that the poll that was circulated framing the issue as to
> whether there is a requirement for the Original Registration Date in
> the EWG Final Report is not the issue in my humble opinion. The issue
> is whether it was recommended. And it was. Very clearly. And for good
> reasons. Some of those were specified in the EWG Final Report on page
> 132, and illustrated in the annex thereto.
>
> There are many very important reasons why this recommendation was
> being made from my perspective. I'm not going to re-hash them. I am
> convinced that the reasons why the EWG as a whole made this
> recommendation would be best satisfied by the counter and indicator of
> unknown or yes status. To just focus on the technical reasons why they
> could have done a better job defining the Original Registration Date
> element as a justification to dismiss the *importance* of the element
> on the basis it was not required would be unfortunate.
>
> Domains may be registered and deleted throughout the day literally
> within fifteen minutes apart. Others who lose their domain
> inadvertently and then want to use that original registration date as
> a point of reference in domain recovery should not lose that
> opportunity. On the flip side, to be fair, someone who is the subject
> of a UDRP deserves the opportunity to point to the original
> registration date as evidence the domain was allowed to lapse. When
> valuating domain names for sale, it is important that there be a
> public record that there may be a cloud on the title. etc.
>
> The fact that it's unknown there is a prior existing registration is
> important information. It let's people know that the creation date
> does not mean it is the first time the string has ever been created
> while at the same time letting us know when we know for sure that
> there has been such a prior registration in the future when deletions
> are tracked. While technically that may be obvious to us here, that is
> not necessarily obvious to many who rely on Whois. So the fact it is
> set to unknown serves a very important purpose. Furthermore, when it
> is actually known, that is vital information to provide (nobody said
> registry operators have to gather historical data that is burdensome
> or that some might not even have). I am not convinced it is too much
> to ask registry operators to keep track of deletions in the future.
> Doing so may not be hard to implement and would meet the
> recommendations of the EWG. Part of the work we are doing here has to
> have long-term vision and not just whether it is helpful in the short
> term for our personal or commercial purposes at hand. A lot of people
> in future generations are counting on us.
>
> The particular date is not as important to meet the underlying
> objectives of the EWG in coming up with this recommendation. I would
> also not dismiss outright how this counter will eventually serve an
> important function as an indicator of severe abuse that is taking
> place behind the scenes that nobody has easy access to see but can be
> in the future would be more readily apparent from following the EWG's
> recommendation in this regard (albeit, interpreting their
> recommendation more liberally to satisfy the policy considerations and
> purposes they identified).
>
> All of that said, I recognize and respect that others may disagree on
> this. I would at least then recommend that we ensure that the specific
> ID number that must be collected anyway from an engineering
> perspective is required to actually be *displayed* to tenuously meet
> the objectives of the EWG indirectly since its being exposed in a
> protocol anyway by definition. While this is a lot more work and not
> as helpful to many Internet users as the compromised suggestion to
> meet their recommendation, at least we have protection assuming there
> are historical records as readily available as today and that people
> can point out the different object ID numbers for these strings and
> explain what that means.
>
> Okay, I'm moving on unless there is a group that feels based on what
> I've said, that we should at least re-visit briefly. I recognize that
> there are *many* on this string with a lot more experience than me and
> knowledge coming from different vantage points, but feel it is
> important to at least lay this out in case others agree, as I wasn't
> on the call and couldn't chime in, in as a timely manner for which I
> express my regrets.
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com
> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> wrote:
>
> I want to request that any members who think there is value in the
> 'counter'
> data element to please answer Paul's question: " So the utility
> of the
> counter seems highly limited. Does it even
> deliver the usefulness that its proponents want it to?" Please
> share what
> you think that value is on this list by Monday of next week.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:32 AM
> To: Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com <mailto:gca at icginc.com>>; Andrew
> Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original
> Registration
> Date
>
> And what is the intended purpose sought to be achieved?
>
> On 9/21/17, 5:15 PM, "Greg Aaron"
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of gca at icginc.com <mailto:gca at icginc.com>> wrote:
>
> >The upshot is that the counter would probably start at "Unknown" for
> >all existing domains.
> >* Once implemented, the feature has little usefulness until years in
> >the future, when some domains get re-registered and those strings
> >accumulate some history.
> >* But many domains get renewed year after year. Those wouldn't
> >accumulate counter history, and would be set to Unknown either
> forever,
> >or for long periods if they are ever allowed to expire and if
> they are
> >then re-registered. This is a significant portion of domains. For
> >example .COM has an renewal rate of around 72%.
> >
> >So the utility of the counter seems highly limited. Does it even
> >deliver the usefulness that its proponents want it to?
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> >[mailto: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 10:49 AM
> >To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> >Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original
> >Registration Date
> >
> >On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
> >> The alternate proposal is a simple marker that says whether
> there has
> >>been a known previous iteration of the domain string, having been
> >>registered with a different ROID.
> >>
> >
> >Or a counter, of course, rather than just the marker. From the point
> >of view of implementation in a database, I think these two
> options are
> >approximately the same, so I prefer the counter because it
> provides an
> >additional bit of data (that is, that the domain is changing --
> you can
> >watch it happen).
> >
> >> And it still presents the same operational problem: the
> registry has
> >>to figure out whether a string has existed before. That is
> something
> >>registries are not designed to do. And they may not have the
> >>necessary historical records. See the notes below.
> >>
> >
> >Well, no, that's part of the point of the new proposal: the registry
> >_doesn't_ have to figure that out, because the counter can be set to
> >"unknown" (in a SQL database, you'd probably use NULL). To support
> >this feature, however, the registry would have to track deletions of
> >domain names in the future. So it wouldn't be free, but it also
> >wouldn't be hard to implement. (Any real SQL database, for instance,
> >could do this with an ON DELETE trigger.)
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >A
> >
> >--
> >Andrew Sullivan
> >ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> >_______________________________________________
> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
> >_______________________________________________
> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the
> designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary
> information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you
> are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute
> this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender
> by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank
> you.*******************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170930/81827bdb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list