<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hello All,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>While I will work with the smaller group on a more concise definition of “Authoritative,” I wanted to provide these broad brush strokes on my perspective of this concept to the entire group.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Authoritative Data used in the context of the RDS WG is intend to define the concept of which data shall deemed to be controlling(authoritative) when confronted with data elements that are NOT identical (i.e. are inconsistent).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Currently there are multiple parties in the domain name eco system that possess (disseminate/make available) Whois data records associated with a domain name, some under ICANN contract (registries and registrars) and those that are not (i.e. third party proxy agents, historical whois aggregators, etc.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The “authoritativeness” of all Whois data elements are NOT necessary treated equal. The Registry is absolutely Authoritative in connection with the name servers published in the zone file. However, inconsistencies in other data elements can and do happen, i.e. Registrars that update domain name Whois locally without timely updating the information at the Registry, historical thin/thick registries; Registrants that provide false and inaccurate information; Registrant data that unintentional because outdate/inaccurate, etc.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Standard Registry Agreements have legal provisions in their RRA which dictate which data will control (i.e. be authoritative). See for example the following provision from VeriSign’s RRA: “<strong><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>2.11. Time.</span></strong> Registrar agrees that in the event of any dispute concerning the time of the entry of a domain name registration into the registry database, the time shown in the Verisign records shall control.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In making a legal determination as to the “authoritativeness” of Whois data elements there are some rebuttable presumptions. Per the standard RRA, there should be a presumption of authoritativeness of the data in the Registry database. This presumption of authoritativeness can be challenged using data residing in the Registrar database in certain circumstances. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Regarding third party aggregated historical Whois data elements, there is a widely accepted presumption within the industry that this data is historically accurate in the absent of any conflicting Registry/Registrar authoritative data. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So for those members looking for a nice neat definition of “authoritative” sorry for this rambling <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-style:normal'>soliloquy</span></em><em><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>. </span></em> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I would also encourage WG members to read this currently pending ICANN reconsideration request dealing with the “authoritativeness” of whois data elements, see <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-17-1-smith-request-2017-03-16-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-17-1-smith-request-2017-03-16-en</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Michael<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>