<html><body><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>Hi Jim,</div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>My point was in regard domains that cannot be deleted or when the deletion request is rejected by the registry and is never allowed to complete. For example domains that Verisign have on serverHold is an example.</div><div><br></div><div>The domains "life-cycle" would normally be when a registrant registers the domain, renewals/transfers in between, then no longer wants a domain, it enters RGP, if not renewed by Registrant, then generally deleted by the registrar sending an EPP command to the registry, registrant can still redeem in Redemption period at a higher price and if at that point the registrant does not redeem it, </div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>At any point the registrant can request their domain be deleted (and they on some panels can do this themselves) at which point it immediately enters RGP.</div><div><br></div><div data-marker="__SIG_PRE__">Kind regards,<br><br>Chris</div><br><hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__"><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><b>From: </b>"James Galvin" <jgalvin@afilias.info><br><b>To: </b>"chris" <chris@netearth.net><br><b>Cc: </b>"Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, 9 September, 2016 13:30:33<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose<br></div><br><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">Chris, could you expand on this point with some examples.<br><br>Shane Kerr suggested that creation to deletion was not a complete life <br>cycle by suggesting we include “reserved” names that are declared <br>before creation. I asked if “reserved” (and “archived”) are <br>really separate end points or just a detail inside of creation and <br>deletion.<br><br>What do you think?<br><br>Jim<br><br><br><br>On 9 Sep 2016, at 3:09, Chris Pelling wrote:<br><br>> We also need to consider that the life-cycle of the domain is not <br>> entirely under the control of the registrant whom provided the data, <br>> which then brings in Privacy law for example. The life-cycle meaning <br>> for this purpose would need to be very well defined.<br>><br>> Kind regards,<br>><br>> Chris<br>><br>><br>> From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><br>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com><br>> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><br>> Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2016 20:21:03<br>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose<br>><br>> I expressed a concern about this on the call (it may have been in the <br>> chat), along the following lines: What exactly is meant by "the <br>> life-cycle of a domain name"?<br>><br>> Also, is this meant to be a minimum standard (i.e., RDS must, at a <br>> minimum, support the life-cycle of a domain name), to which other <br>> elements can be added?<br>><br>> Or is this meant to be a limiting standard (i.e., RDS must not do more <br>> than support the life-cycle of a domain name), to which other elements <br>> can be added only if they fit within the "life-cycle of a domain <br>> name"?<br>><br>> Or is this meant to be a "primary purpose" standard, where other <br>> elements can be added, but they would not be considered a "primary <br>> purpose" (which has a significant downstream effect, e.g., in certain <br>> privacy legislation)?<br>><br>> Finally, I would ask which of the use cases that we have on our list <br>> fall within "the life-cycle of a domain name" and which do not? (I <br>> suppose this last question is intertwined with my first question <br>> above.<br>><br>> Depending on what other participants believe the answers to these <br>> questions should be, and what their effect may be, I may have <br>> significant concerns about this statement.<br>><br>> Greg<br>><br>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck < cgomes@verisign.com > <br>> wrote:<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> In our call earlier this week there seemed to be support for one <br>> element of a RDS Statement of Purpose as suggested by Jim Galvin: <br>> “The RDS should support the life cycle of a domain name.” No one <br>> on the call disagreed with this; if anyone not on the call has <br>> comments on this please communicate so on this list prior to our call <br>> next week. Also, if any one who was on the call has comments that you <br>> did not share, please do so before next week’s meeting.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Also, it would be helpful if everyone could be thinking about answers <br>> to the following questions:<br>><br>> · What are the criteria for a statement of purpose?<br>><br>> · What elements, if any, from the EWG statement of purpose should be <br>> reflected in the statement of purpose?<br>><br>> · What other elements need to be reflected in the statement of <br>> purpose?<br>><br>> We plan to discuss these questions in next week’s meeting but <br>> comments would be appreciated on the list before then.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Chuck<br>><br>><br>><br>> Here’s the EWG statement of purpose that we discussed in our meeting <br>> earlier this week:<br>><br>><br>><br>> To help guide the EWG in its deliberations, the group developed a <br>> high-level statement of purpose from which to test its conclusions and <br>> recommendations, as follows:<br>><br>> In support of ICANN’s mission to coordinate the global Internet’s <br>> system of unique identifiers, and to ensure the stable and secure <br>> operation of the Internet’s unique identifier system, information <br>> about gTLD domain names is necessary to promote trust and confidence <br>> in the Internet for all stakeholders.<br>><br>> Accordingly, it is desirable to design a system to support domain name <br>> registration and maintenance which:<br>><br>> · Provides appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform <br>> registration data<br>><br>> · Protects the privacy of personal information<br>><br>> · Enables a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and <br>> maintaining the ability to contact Registrants<br>><br>> · Supports a framework to address issues involving Registrants, <br>> including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of <br>> cybercrime, and intellectual property protection<br>><br>> · Provides an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement <br>> needs<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<br></div></div></body></html>