<div dir="auto">Personnally I think we can't continue revisiting things we already had rough consensus on.. There will always be room for improvement whatever we do. So let's focus on things which are still yet to be done/analyzed... Otherwise we'll keep looping.<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><br><br>Regards<br>@__f_f__<br><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf">https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf</a><br>________________________________<br>Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.</div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">Le 11 oct. 2017 19:23, "Chuck" <<a href="mailto:consult@cgomes.com">consult@cgomes.com</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Andrew is correct that we reached a tentative agreement that this element would not be included in the RDS. We could revisit it later as with all of our rough consensus agreements but for now I think it would be best to move on.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Chuck<br>
</font><div class="quoted-text"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan<br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:18 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date<br>
<br>
</div><div class="elided-text">On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:59:57PM -0400, Sam Lanfranco wrote:<br>
> Retaining a history of the registration of a domain name, when there<br>
> is an issue of abuse, fraud, etc., seems to me both a bit more<br>
> complicated and messy, and of limited added value for due diligence.<br>
<br>
First, I thought we were done with this topic, and that we had already decided that we weren't going to add the ORD,<br>
<br>
Anyway, the point of the ORD was in fact to catch precisely this "recent-registration-abuse" stuff: if you look up a name and discover that it had an old ORD and yet the crDate is recent, you have _prima facie_ evidence that the name object in question might not be the one you think it is.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div>