[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server Content
Volker Greimann
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Mon Feb 1 14:47:43 UTC 2016
While RDAP is at this time off-topic to our work, I would like to add my
2 cents (EUR).
It is problematic for ICANN to recommend the use of certain features
without any policy to back up such use. Further, it is not helpful
requiring contracted parties to implement features that may never come
into use. Such implementation would be a complete waste of precious
ressources.
Without the additional feratures however, the benefit to be gained by
this implementation become slim to non-existant, throwing into question
the need to implement this system at all, especially since it may
ultimately be superseded by the work of this PDP.
The entire rush to implement the RDAP is ill-conceived and provides
little to no benefits to the community. If it were to be required, it
should be backed up by appropriate policy recommendations.
Best,
Volker
Am 01.02.2016 um 15:14 schrieb Carlton Samuels:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B353%20%280%29%2059%20%C2%A09183072>
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <tel:%2B353%20%280%2959%209183090>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> 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
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck
> Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
> *Date:*Sunday 31 January 2016 at 14:39
> *To:*Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>>, Scott Hollenbeck
> <shollenbeck at verisign.com <mailto:shollenbeck at verisign.com>>
> *Cc:*"gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> <mailto: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>[mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:876-818-1799>
> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
> =============================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 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/20160201/9be0ddfe/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list