[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Mon Oct 9 08:13:23 UTC 2017
I still think that the only date that should be included is the creation
date of a domain name as all potential previous registrations of the
same string refer to a different domain object.
A domain that once existed and has been permanently deleted at the
registry level is not the same as a domain registered when the string
became available again, and we should not try to conflate both into one
object.
Best,
Volker
Am 02.10.2017 um 05:28 schrieb jonathan matkowsky:
> The point is that without it, you run the risk of misunderstandings of
> what the creation date implies for starters. While that could be
> mitigated arguably with disclaimers, there’s no personal information
> in indicating whether there are known prior registration dates and the
> expert working group recommended that original registration date be
> included. This is just more accurate. Plus the Whois is the most
> direct evidence without necessarily having to ask for documents that
> would include personal information. So this potentially reduces the
> need for personal information disclosure. If someone wants to get
> their domain back that inadvertently lapsed, there would be an
> indicator that it was previously registered without having to
> necessarily prove it. Plus records can more easily be forged. This
> couldn’t be.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:30 PM Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
> Surely there are many other ways an individual could prove the
> original registration date of a domain, other than it being in the
> WHOIS?
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
> On 2017-09-28 18:22, jonathan matkowsky wrote:
>> There is a lot going on in the last week, and I am *still*
>> playing catch up.
>>
>> I apologize with the religious high holidays at the end of last
>> week and my travel right before that, I dropped the ball, but I
>> want to emphasize that the poll that was circulated framing the
>> issue as to whether there is a requirement for the Original
>> Registration Date in the EWG Final Report is not the issue in my
>> humble opinion. The issue is whether it was recommended. And it
>> was. Very clearly. And for good reasons. Some of those were
>> specified in the EWG Final Report on page 132, and illustrated in
>> the annex thereto.
>>
>> There are many very important reasons why this recommendation was
>> being made from my perspective. I'm not going to re-hash them. I
>> am convinced that the reasons why the EWG as a whole made this
>> recommendation would be best satisfied by the counter and
>> indicator of unknown or yes status. To just focus on the
>> technical reasons why they could have done a better job defining
>> the Original Registration Date element as a justification to
>> dismiss the *importance* of the element on the basis it was not
>> required would be unfortunate.
>>
>> Domains may be registered and deleted throughout the day
>> literally within fifteen minutes apart. Others who lose their
>> domain inadvertently and then want to use that original
>> registration date as a point of reference in domain recovery
>> should not lose that opportunity. On the flip side, to be fair,
>> someone who is the subject of a UDRP deserves the opportunity to
>> point to the original registration date as evidence the domain
>> was allowed to lapse. When valuating domain names for sale, it is
>> important that there be a public record that there may be a cloud
>> on the title. etc.
>>
>> The fact that it's unknown there is a prior existing registration
>> is important information. It let's people know that the creation
>> date does not mean it is the first time the string has ever been
>> created while at the same time letting us know when we know for
>> sure that there has been such a prior registration in the future
>> when deletions are tracked. While technically that may be obvious
>> to us here, that is not necessarily obvious to many who rely on
>> Whois. So the fact it is set to unknown serves a very important
>> purpose. Furthermore, when it is actually known, that is vital
>> information to provide (nobody said registry operators have to
>> gather historical data that is burdensome or that some might not
>> even have). I am not convinced it is too much to ask registry
>> operators to keep track of deletions in the future. Doing so may
>> not be hard to implement and would meet the recommendations of
>> the EWG. Part of the work we are doing here has to have long-term
>> vision and not just whether it is helpful in the short term for
>> our personal or commercial purposes at hand. A lot of people in
>> future generations are counting on us.
>>
>> The particular date is not as important to meet the underlying
>> objectives of the EWG in coming up with this recommendation. I
>> would also not dismiss outright how this counter will eventually
>> serve an important function as an indicator of severe abuse that
>> is taking place behind the scenes that nobody has easy access to
>> see but can be in the future would be more readily apparent from
>> following the EWG's recommendation in this regard (albeit,
>> interpreting their recommendation more liberally to satisfy the
>> policy considerations and purposes they identified).
>>
>> All of that said, I recognize and respect that others may
>> disagree on this. I would at least then recommend that we ensure
>> that the specific ID number that must be collected anyway from an
>> engineering perspective is required to actually be *displayed* to
>> tenuously meet the objectives of the EWG indirectly since its
>> being exposed in a protocol anyway by definition. While this is a
>> lot more work and not as helpful to many Internet users as the
>> compromised suggestion to meet their recommendation, at least we
>> have protection assuming there are historical records as readily
>> available as today and that people can point out the different
>> object ID numbers for these strings and explain what that means.
>>
>> Okay, I'm moving on unless there is a group that feels based on
>> what I've said, that we should at least re-visit briefly. I
>> recognize that there are *many* on this string with a lot more
>> experience than me and knowledge coming from different vantage
>> points, but feel it is important to at least lay this out in case
>> others agree, as I wasn't on the call and couldn't chime in, in
>> as a timely manner for which I express my regrets.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com
>> <mailto:consult at cgomes.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I want to request that any members who think there is value
>> in the 'counter'
>> data element to please answer Paul's question: " So the
>> utility of the
>> counter seems highly limited. Does it even
>> deliver the usefulness that its proponents want it to?"
>> Please share what
>> you think that value is on this list by Monday of next week.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul
>> Keating
>> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 8:32 AM
>> To: Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com <mailto:gca at icginc.com>>;
>> Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>;
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for
>> Original Registration
>> Date
>>
>> And what is the intended purpose sought to be achieved?
>>
>> On 9/21/17, 5:15 PM, "Greg Aaron"
>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on
>> behalf of gca at icginc.com <mailto:gca at icginc.com>> wrote:
>>
>> >The upshot is that the counter would probably start at
>> "Unknown" for
>> >all existing domains.
>> >* Once implemented, the feature has little usefulness until
>> years in
>> >the future, when some domains get re-registered and those
>> strings
>> >accumulate some history.
>> >* But many domains get renewed year after year. Those wouldn't
>> >accumulate counter history, and would be set to Unknown
>> either forever,
>> >or for long periods if they are ever allowed to expire and
>> if they are
>> >then re-registered. This is a significant portion of
>> domains. For
>> >example .COM has an renewal rate of around 72%.
>> >
>> >So the utility of the counter seems highly limited. Does it
>> even
>> >deliver the usefulness that its proponents want it to?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>> >[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> >Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 10:49 AM
>> >To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> >Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original
>> >Registration Date
>> >
>> >On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 02:28:39PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
>> >> The alternate proposal is a simple marker that says
>> whether there has
>> >>been a known previous iteration of the domain string,
>> having been
>> >>registered with a different ROID.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Or a counter, of course, rather than just the marker. From
>> the point
>> >of view of implementation in a database, I think these two
>> options are
>> >approximately the same, so I prefer the counter because it
>> provides an
>> >additional bit of data (that is, that the domain is changing
>> -- you can
>> >watch it happen).
>> >
>> >> And it still presents the same operational problem: the
>> registry has
>> >>to figure out whether a string has existed before. That is
>> something
>> >>registries are not designed to do. And they may not have the
>> >>necessary historical records. See the notes below.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Well, no, that's part of the point of the new proposal: the
>> registry
>> >_doesn't_ have to figure that out, because the counter can
>> be set to
>> >"unknown" (in a SQL database, you'd probably use NULL). To
>> support
>> >this feature, however, the registry would have to track
>> deletions of
>> >domain names in the future. So it wouldn't be free, but it also
>> >wouldn't be hard to implement. (Any real SQL database, for
>> instance,
>> >could do this with an ON DELETE trigger.)
>> >
>> >Best regards,
>> >
>> >A
>> >
>> >--
>> >Andrew Sullivan
>> >ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> >gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>> *******************************************************************
>> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the
>> designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or
>> proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality
>> protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not
>> review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in
>> error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this
>> message. Thank
>> you.*******************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
> --
> Jonathan Matkowsky
>
> *******************************************************************
> This message was sent from RiskIQ, and is intended only for the
> designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary
> information and may be subject to confidentiality protections. If you
> are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute
> this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender
> by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank
> you.*******************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171009/125faff7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list