[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] NextGen Registration Data Distribution Service

[Alan Greenberg]

As I said, I have no problem doing this BRIEFLY. But I will point out 
that the ongoing PDP has the explicit charter to (and I quote 
verbatim, emphasis mine) "establish gTLD registration data 
requirements to determine if and why a next generation RDS is needed".

I believe that we have general agreement from our chartering 
organizations that we should not overlap with this PDP and in fact, 
our recommendations go to the Board which does not under the Bylaws 
have the authority to overrule the GNSO PDP.

Alan

At 06/07/2017 02:11 PM, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>I totally agree with you that WHOIS almost does not fit for our 
>current purpose, but I also think that we can (and may be must) say 
>that id does not fit and has to be replaced.
>
>On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>I am less sure than Carlton that we MUST discuss this. I have no 
>problem with discussing whether the current WHOIS protocol is fit 
>for purpose, but it better be a pretty short discussion! If anyone 
>has a good argument why it IS fit for purpose, it should be shared 
>pretty quickly.
>
>The inability of a 7-bit protocol to handle today's IDN world, and 
>the inability to handle any level of 
>authorization/authentication/gating (which is generally understood 
>to be necessary to allow critical information to be collected but 
>not universally displayed in support of privacy legislation) makes 
>the answer pretty clear. And as the charter Carlton points to 
>indicates, this has been clear for quite some time.
>
>This is a REVIEW team. I believe it is well beyond our scope to 
>debate whether the current protocol can be modified to meet new 
>needs, to specify or design a replacement or to review possible 
>replacements. And I have little interest in debating whether any new 
>protocol should be called WHOIS (pretending it is the same), 
>WHOIS-Mark-2, RDAP, WEIRDS, WIERDS or Betelgeuse.
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>At 05/07/2017 10:08 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>
>>Dear All:
>>I believe this review will have to answer the question as to 
>>whether the current WHOIS protocol is fit to purpose in a evolved 
>>DNS environment in one or other job stream.  Some may recall that 
>>the RDAP is being proposed as a fit and proper replacement.
>>
>>You may wish for background to examine the IETF charters for Web 
>>Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (WEIRDS) from whence came RDAP.
>>
>><https://tools.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charters>https://tools.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charters
>>
>>Best,
>>-Carlton
>>
>>==============================
>>Carlton A Samuels
>>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>>=============================
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>> 
>>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:B4FAKC1/EM3XOvHOPyoJ57PmCR+VxY4KD2MBdt6vWtlFgLD4tOOlcsV3foNFR93KAoIM9yzc2f7ovNf8Z27tswcz7fr1TllQNyArpqDRUCTG3fAIGxT2DaVNoDvfJnqPlCyckJle2pLGGdCKNOvr+w==
>>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>> 
>>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
>><mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org>RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
>
>_______________________________________________
>RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
><mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org>RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
>
>
>
>
>--
>SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/attachments/20170706/66ba5cac/attachment-0001.html>