[TSG-Access-RD] RDAP Operational Models

[Jody Kolker]

Just forwarding Scott's question below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck at verisign.com> 
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 12:30 PM
To: Jody Kolker <jkolker at godaddy.com>; tsg-access-rd-bounces at icann.org
Subject: RE: RDAP Operational Models

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jody Kolker <jkolker at godaddy.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 1:24 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck at verisign.com>; tsg-access-rd- 
> bounces at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RDAP Operational Models
>
> Thanks for creating the visual models of these Scott.
>
> All listed models are based on the presumption that ICANN will either 
> validate clients or will validate entities that would validate clients 
> (identity providers).  Without an indemnification agreement between 
> the
> registrars/registries(CPH) and ICANN, I don't see how 
> registrar/registries legal or policy departments will approve any of 
> the these three models.  I'm not sure how likely ICANN is to enter 
> into this type of agreement.  Without that agreement, CPHs will want 
> to approve clients themselves.  Therefore I think this model needs to be discussed and listed.
>
> In regards to the fourth model:
> <<
> Are there any other models worth capturing? I didn't mention "Direct 
> client- to-registry/registrar services with client 
> identification/authentication responsibilities held by the 
> registries/registrars" because we've already discussed how that model 
> doesn't scale well. It would be worth mentioning in the text only to note that it was discussed and dismissed.
> >>

Thanks, Jody. Does anyone else think this 4th model should be documented in more detail?

Scott