<html 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=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<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:12.0pt;
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;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.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>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Hi All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="color:black">Preliminary WG Agreement:</span></b><span style="color:black"> 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="color:black">Preliminary WG Agreement:</span></b><span style="color:black"> PBC types identified (Admin, Legal, Technical, Abuse, Proxy/Privacy, Business) must be supported by the RDS but optional
for registrants to provide</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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 contractibility”. My concern is that
these agreements do exactly the opposite. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">This will clearly will decrease contactability – not increase it. I think we have more work to do here….</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Alex</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>