[IRT.RegDataPolicy] [Ext] IRT - RDS publication requirements

[Anderson, Marc]

Jody, good catch.  Looking closer, it looks like I switched “Postal Code” with “State/Province” in the Fields section.  The logic in the proposed registry/registrar policy language looks correct.



I’ll note this in the google document which is now available.



Thanks,
Marc









From: Jody Kolker <jkolker at godaddy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 12:14 PM
To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org>; Anderson, Marc <mcanderson at verisign.com>; irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Ext] IRT - RDS publication requirements



Thanks for taking this on Marc – that’s a lot of work you’ve done.



I have one update though.  I believe Registrant Postal Code should be changed from:



Registrant Postal Code:

*       registrar - publish
*       registry - optional



to:



Registrant Postal Code:

*       registrar – redaction logic – privacy/proxy - consent
*       registry – redaction logic – privacy/proxy – optional (if exists)



According to Recommendation #10.  Is that correct?



Thanks,

Jody Kolker



From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Dennis Chang
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 8:45 PM
To: Anderson, Marc <mcanderson at verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>>; irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] [Ext] IRT - RDS publication requirements



Notice: This email is from an external sender.



Thanks Marc!



It’s an amazing amount of work you did here.

I agree that we all could benefit from a bit of explanation from you.

I’ll add it to the agenda for our meeting tomorrow.



Thanks

Dennis Chang



From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>>
Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 14:03
To: "irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>" <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>>, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ext] IRT - RDS publication requirements



Dennis and IRT,



During a previous IRT meeting I agreed to propose a re-write of the Rec 10, 11, 12, 13 & 6 Analysis Review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OuZT7xL5wuV1ynVmpVNxFycU93gvPlvbzx_g9lXCYCw/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1OuZT7xL5wuV1ynVmpVNxFycU93gvPlvbzx-5Fg9lXCYCw_edit&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=-4AkgbH28xfBhmn0UK-AkW773RadGcJ2rWG_4WY_1-U&s=t2OrR5WrEgwPNCB9SlLX0hCUWDh4yI--F2YYG5o4IWQ&e=>



That document covers the policy recommendations specific to registries and registrars for the publication of RDS data.  There was concern raised that the current draft is to Whois centric and should be technology agnostic (especially now that RDAP is required) and that it was confusing for an implementor.



Attached is my attempt at a re-write addressing those concerns.  It probably requires a little bit of explanation and I would be happy to present the document on our next call.  In the document you’ll find links to source material I used.  That is followed by a list of all the applicable fields and a brief description of the requirements that apply to those fields.  Finally there are the policy requirements that apply to both registries and registrars along with the registry/registrar specific logic.



I tried to draft the document to be inclusive of all the EPDP phase 1 requirements specific to publication of RDS data and to be able to stand alone.



Best,

Marc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20191002/096c2e29/attachment.html>