<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Volker,<br>
<br>
One merit to this early discussion is to agree with what is NOT on
the immediate agenda for work and for our focus. <br>
Rather than it opening a can of worms (issues) it can help put some
of those worms/issues on the shelf for future attention.<br>
I see it a bit like a pre-chartering exercise, to hone down the
remit and the focus of the work. <br>
<br>
Sam L. <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><i>On 01/02/2016 9:47 AM, Volker
Greimann wrote:</i><i><br>
</i></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56AF700F.5090503@key-systems.net" type="cite"><i>
</i>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<i> While RDAP is at this time off-topic to our work, I would like
to add my 2 cents (EUR).</i><i><br>
</i><i> </i><i><br>
</i><i> 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.
</i><i><br>
</i><i> </i><i><br>
</i><i> 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especially since it may ultimately be superseded by the work of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. </i><i><br>
</i><i> </i><i><br>
</i><i> 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.</i><i><br>
</i><i> </i><i><br>
</i><i> Best,</i><i><br>
</i><i> </i><i><br>
</i><i> Volker</i><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>