<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=utf-8">
<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;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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 bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Yes – there appears to be inconsistency between the goal of decent contactability and the possible implementation, which might not deliver on that promise.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">All best,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">--Greg</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Deacon, Alex<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Contractibility, PBC and required contact methods....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<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>