[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date

[Chuck]

That was my point Farell.

 

Chuck

 

From: Farell Folly [mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:27 AM
To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>; Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Agreement for Original Registration Date

 

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.

 



Regards
@__f_f__
https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
________________________________
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.

 

Le 11 oct. 2017 19:23, "Chuck" <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> > a écrit :

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.

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 Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:18 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 Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:59:57PM -0400, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> Retaining a history of the registration of a domain name, when there
> is an issue of abuse, fraud, etc.,  seems to me both a bit more
> complicated and messy, and of limited added value for due diligence.

First, I thought we were done with this topic, and that we had already decided that we weren't going to add the ORD,

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.

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171011/4ebcd1fd/attachment-0001.html>