[TSG-Access-RD] Bulk Data, Bulk Query, WhoWas and Charter scope

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TSG-Access-RD <tsg-access-rd-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of
> Hollenbeck, Scott via TSG-Access-RD
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 9:32 AM
> To: Francisco Arias <francisco.arias at icann.org>
> Cc: tsg-access-rd at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TSG-Access-RD] Bulk Data, Bulk Query, WhoWas
> and Charter scope
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 2018, at 6:19 PM, Francisco Arias <francisco.arias at icann.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think the question of how requests are going to be reviewed is out of
> scope for this group. In the spec we have to support both
> "online/interactive" and manual authorizations as described in questions 2
> and 3 in the authentication/authorization section of the key questions of the
> charter at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/tsg-access-non-
> public-registration-data-charter-20dec18-en.pdf
> >
> > As described in the second paragraph of the charter (purpose section) the
> registry/registrar will only see a request from ICANN. There will be no
> interaction between the requestor and the registry/registrar.
>
> So we’re no longer considering a split model and ICANN will provide the
> public interface for all client queries for both public and non-public data?  If
> so, I hope you’ll consider deploying it from rdap.internic.net. It would be nice
> to see internic.net providing a useful service again.

Along these lines, others may be interested in reading the final report of the Whois 1 Review Team, particularly recommendation 11. Quoted here:

"It is recommended that the Internic Service is overhauled to provide enhanced usability for consumers, including the display of full registrant data for all gTLD domain names
(whether those gTLDs operate thin or thick WHOIS Services) in order to create a one stop shop, from a trusted provider, for consumers and other users of WHOIS Services.

In making this finding and recommendation, we are not proposing a change in the location where data is held, ownership of the data, nor do we see a policy development
process as necessary or desirable.  We are proposing an operational improvement to an existing service, the Internic. This should include enhanced promotion of the service, to
increase user awareness."

So, NO split interface. Is this a recommendation that we can work with?

Source: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-11may12-en.pdf

Scott