[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] One additional EPDP issue

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Thu Feb 14 01:01:23 UTC 2019

Dear Alan,

this is like lobbing correspondence over a wall... something which some
of us are accustomed to. :-)
More seriously though, would it be possible to require that any such
correspondence using an online form needs to email a copy of the form to
the enquirer's email address as well as the registrant and provide both
with a unique case ID? In effect, it's a CRM system. Online businesses
use that all the time. I can live with a CRM system that tracks cases
even without knowing who owns the domain name.
Kindest regards,


On 13/02/2019 21:42, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> There was bound to be one issue that we forgot today.
> This is the fact that all communications with a registrant or tech 
> contact will be via anonymized e-mail r a we form (which then is 
> e-mail sent by the registrar).
> Both are what I refer to as "black hole" communications. You tow the 
> message out and unless there is a reply, you never know if it was 
> really forwarded on your behalf, whether it was received. If it 
> bounced, the Registrar may know that it did, but the sender does not.
> With a real address, you can at least use a number of tools to try to 
> determine if there is a path to the mail server or if the user 
> exists. Here there is nothing.
> Alan
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190214/c36412e9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org

More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list