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

[Tomofumi Okubo]

+1
I believe it is very important to clarify this.
Cheers,
Tomofumi


From: Hollenbeck, Scott via TSG-Access-RD
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TSG-Access-RD] [Ext] Re:   Bulk Data, Bulk Query, WhoWas and Charter scope
To: francisco.arias at icann.org
Cc: tsg-access-rd at icann.org


> -----Original Message----- > From: Francisco Arias > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 2:27 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: Jody Kolker ; tsg-access-rd at icann.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] Re: [TSG-Access-RD] Bulk Data, Bulk Query, > WhoWas and Charter scope > > I was talking about the queries for non-public data. Queries for public data, > should continue to be served directly by the registry/registrar. This runs counter to recommendation 11 found in the final report of the WHOIS Policy Review Team, which I described in a message* sent to this list yesterday. Be that as it may, our charter does not include any assumptions about a split operating model. Francisco, is your statement above a suggestion for TSG consideration, or is it a requirement? If it's a requirement, what is it based on? Sorry to continue harping on this, but knowing if it is a suggestion or a requirement will make a huge difference in our discussions over the next several weeks. Scott > Francisco > > On 12/22/18, 6:31 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" > wrote: > > > > On Dec 21, 2018, at 6:19 PM, Francisco Arias > 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. > > Scott * https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tsg-access-rd/2019-January/000062.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tsg-access-rd/attachments/20190104/b963be81/attachment-0001.html>