[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server Content

Mon Feb 1 14:14:21 UTC 2016

I have a more nuanced view of the ALAC's position.  There is nothing that
says a conscientious data controller within the DNS ecosystem - which to my
understanding is a wider net than gTLDs - cannot implement from Day One the
software feature set that makes differentiated access to RD possible.
Because it is likely that by doing so, early adopters in the broader
ecosystem could, by virtue of this endorsement, be encouraged to make use
of it.

Sure, the official ICANN use policy is lagging and that is not unusual.
But the consensus for differentiated access is arguably well-formed.  The
perfect must not be allowed to become the enemy of the good. Such a
position merely signals endorsement of the best practice and eschew its
retardation.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com> wrote:

> Thanks Holly.  The IPC has also commented on the draft RDAP operational
> profile but contrary to ALAC’s position.  See the following excerpt:
>
>
>
> “Section II of the public comment notice (see
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en ) notes
> that one ICANN advisory committee has insisted that the RDAP profile “must
> include the feature set that will support differentiated access” to domain
> name registration data.  IPC supports ICANN’s response to this, that
> including such a requirement in the RDAP profile is premature, “[g]iven the
> ongoing discussions and work in the community on differentiated access.”
> While it is correct that RDAP “does allow for differentiated access for
> those that have contracts that permit such a service, or in the event a
> consensus policy on differentiated access is completed,” the development of
> such a policy is still at an early phase.  The PDP working group on
> Registry Directory Services is still in the process of formation, and it
> will be some time before there is any consensus policy on whether
> differentiated access will be a required feature of any new Registration
> Data Directory Service (RDDS) for gTLDs, and if so the particulars of such
> a requirement.
>
> Throughout the development of RDAP, there has been a clear distinction
> made between the development of a replacement *technical* protocol that
> could enable differentiated access, and the *policy* decision as to
> whether and if so under what circumstances that technical capability would
> be deployed.  IPC commends ICANN for maintaining that vital distinction in
> this draft proposal. As the public comment notice states, “once/if there is
> a consensus policy or some contractual provision allowing for
> differentiated access in RDP, the profile could be updated as needed.”
> Indeed, the draft RDAP profile specifically refers to the capability to
> redact some data  “[I]f permitted or required by an ICANN agreement
> provision ,waiver, or Consensus Policy.” Section 1.4.11.”
>
> However, I am pleased to see that the ALAC and IPC submissions on the
> companion notice regarding Thick Whois are very much in sync!  See
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdds-output-03dec15/msg00002.html
>  and
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdds-output-03dec15/msg00003.html
>
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Holly Raiche
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 31, 2016 2:56 PM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org; Gomes, Chuck
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server
> Content
>
>
>
> Thanks Chuck
>
>
>
> This is a very important component of the overall move to update the Whois
> protocol and the various policies associated with it.  ALAC has
> specifically commented on this, concluding with the following:
>
>
>
> *Therefore, while existing ICANN policies do not now require
> differentiated access to DNRD, it is clear from Board decisions and EWG
> recommendations that future ICANN policies will likely have that
> requirement. *
>
> *The Operational Profile of RDAP, therefore, should include an obligation
> on all gTLD registries and registrars that the basic functionality will
> support an authentication and authorisation framework.*
>
> *Specifically, the features to allow differentiated access must be
> required now, as part of this protocol – even if at this stage all access
> seekers will be in one class - the public. In that way, when differentiated
> access requirements are imposed, protocol features will already be deployed
> to provide such access.*
>
> Holly
>
> On 1 Feb 2016, at 2:03 am, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
> michele at blacknight.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> +1
>
> Ploughing ahead with RDAP in its current form *without* a proper policy
> framework is a terrible idea, as the indexing issue has shown.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Michele
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> http://www.blacknight.host/
>
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>
> http://ceo.hosting/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Chuck Gomes <
> cgomes at verisign.com>
> *Date: *Sunday 31 January 2016 at 14:39
> *To: *Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>, Scott Hollenbeck <
> shollenbeck at verisign.com>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server
> Content
>
>
>
> For those who are not aware, there is a comment period currently underway
> that has just been extended to February 15 regarding a proposed
> implementation of RDAP:
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en .
>
>
>
> I encourage you to express your concerns in this comment period if you
> haven’t already done so.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Carlton Samuels
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 31, 2016 1:13 AM
> *To:* Hollenbeck, Scott
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server
> Content
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Hollenbeck, Scott <
> shollenbeck at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> It's also an important data point in the discussion about deploying RDAP
> services before policies are in place that allow operators to take
> advantage of the new features provided by RDAP. Deploying RDAP with the
> same policies associated with WHOIS gives us the same problems associated
> with WHOIS.
>
>
>
> Totally agree.
>
>
>
> -Carlton
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> 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
> 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/20160201/ebbab75d/attachment.html>