Here, you have a Traffic Conference between 2 groups, one which is called Team Schilling, and one which is Team Schwartz, which has Rick Schwartz & Lonnie Borck.

Then when Lonnie Borck passed away…:

The “Lonnie Borck Memorial Award” was given to David Weslow, attorney of Wiley Rein.

Secondly, in an interview on Domain Sherpa with Michael Cyger & Rick Schwartz, that Interview was sponsored by 3 people/groups. One of those people was David Weslow, who sponsored the Interview between Michael Cyger & Rick Shwartz (see: https://www.domainsherpa.com/rick-schwartz-domainking-interview).

Thirdly, in an article on OnlineDomain.com, it’s about the case David Weslow took on against Scratch.org, representing the wrong side, and in the comments section, Rick Shwartz calls David Weslow “a big loser”. – (see: https://onlinedomain.com/2019/06/12/domain-name-news/if-you-received-a-subpoena-from-enom-you-are-not-alone/#comment-368587)

QUESTION NOW: WHICH OF THIS IS MOST EXCITING TO YOU TO UNDERSTAND AND ARE YOU ABLE TO PUT THE LOGIC AND MAKE SENSE OUT OF THIS ENTIRE MATTER?

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING:

Reverse domain name hijacking (also known as reverse cybersquatting or commonly abbreviated as ‘RDNH’), occurs where a rightful trademark owner attempts to secure a domain name by making cybersquatting claims against a domain name’s “cybersquatter” owner.^[1] This often intimidates domain name owners into transferring ownership of their domain names to trademark owners to avoid legal action, particularly when the domain names belong to smaller organizations or individuals.^[2] Reverse domain name hijacking is most commonly enacted by larger corporations and famous individuals, in defense of their rightful trademark or to prevent libel or slander.^[3]

Reverse domain name “hijacking” is a legal remedy to counter the practice of domain squatting, wherein individuals hold many registered domain names containing famous third party trademarks with the intent of profiting by selling the domain names back to trademark owners.^[4] Trademark owners initially responded by filing cybersquatting lawsuits against registrants to enforce their trademark rights.^[5] However, as the number of cybersquatting incidents grew, trademark owners noticed that registrants would often settle their cases rather than litigate.^[6]Cybersquatting lawsuits are a defensive strategy to combat cybersquatting, however such lawsuits may also be used as a way of strongarming innocent domain name registrants into giving up domain names that the trademark owner is not, in fact, entitled to.

CREDIT: WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Where the respondent provides satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of possession, panels typically would not treat merely “formal” changes or updates to registrant contact information as a new registration.