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

[Holly Raiche]

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] 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160201/08025c5a/attachment.html>