Dear All,
Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the Next-Gen RDS PDP Working group call held on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC.
MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-pdp-11oct16-en.mp3
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/JRa4Aw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Michelle DeSmyter
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday, 11 October 2016
Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the Next-Gen RDS PDP WG call on Tuesday, 11 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC.
Michelle DeSmyter: Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/JRa4Aw
Michelle DeSmyter: Member page: https://community.icann.org/x/I4xlAw
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Hello All
Daniel K. Nanghaka: Hello Maxim
Carlton Samuels: Howdy all
Chuck Gomes: Hi all.
Daniel K. Nanghaka: Hi
Marina Lewis: Hi everyone
Marina Lewis: I can help...
Lisa Phifer: @Marina, thanks for volunteering
Marina Lewis: :)
Elaine PRuis: good morning
andrew sullivan: I don't feel strongly about that, note -- it was just a suggestion to try to unstick us.
Elaine PRuis: I brought this up a few weeks ago--not every TLD has the same lifecycle.
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): +1, @Elaine, for example some
do not have AGP
Elaine PRuis: I'm hestiant to refer to the ICANN diagram of lifecycle as many TLDS don't follow that lifecycle, and specific timelines indicated
Elaine PRuis: keep losing connectivity
andrew sullivan: But the point Jim just made on the phone is that you don't need to have _one_ lifecycle
andrew sullivan: the point is that every domain necessarily has some registration lifecycle under it
andrew sullivan: and the RDS tells you about it
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): ALP did not work , (one of GEOs tried that - it took around year to explain things to ICANN)
andrew sullivan: I could support that mod
Jim Galvin (Afilias): SAC054 is the reference for discussion of life cycle that recognizes that not all TLDs are the same.
Lisa Phifer: @Jim thanks for doc ref
steve metalitz: @Chuck, why does your proposal omit information about registrants?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it is in IANA
andrew sullivan: What Maxim said
andrew sullivan: whois -h whois.iana.org com
andrew sullivan: for instance
Lisa Phifer: RDS currently = Registration Directory Service, not Registration Data Service. Is that change in acronym intentional here?
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: sounds keep dropping
andrew sullivan: I disagree with Greg also.
One version of managing access is to allow anyone to query anything
andrew sullivan: it's a completely open management policy
Rod Rasmussen: Or a "No" management policy. ;-)
Greg Aaron: none
andrew sullivan: But there is management of information
andrew sullivan: for instance, there are things in the registry that don't appear in the whois today
andrew sullivan: that's managing the info
andrew sullivan: (I certainly won't die on this hill, however)
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @andrew, some of registry info (such as IDs of persons) should not be uploaded
Rod Rasmussen: @Andrew - of course - did you see the smiley at the end of my smart-ass comment?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): or at least should not be accessible
Jim Galvin (Afilias): What are the other choices in summary?
Greg Aaron: i prefer "provoide information"
Rod Rasmussen: Provide information works better for me.
Lisa Phifer: "manage access to information" v "provide information about"
Carlton Samuels: In my view "Provide information" is a more generic reference
andrew sullivan: I will merely point out that "one big database" is the system the DNS replaced
andrew sullivan: because it didn't scale properly
andrew sullivan: (That's an aside.)
Carlton Samuels: @Alan: RDS is to provide information. How we provide it is a bout management
Marika Konings 2: yes, correct, has been added
Marika Konings 2: that is not possible with live editing
Marika Konings 2: sorry about that
Alan Greenberg: @Carlton, perhaps, but saying purpose is SOLELY to provide without the caveat may set incorrect expectations.
Alan Greenberg: TO be specific, management is not a purpose, but providing information "according to some defined rule-set" is. I find that wording awkward thought.
Alan Greenberg: though
Carlton Samuels: @Alan:...which is now being discussed in #3
Carlton Samuels: ...so RDS provide information..........for specific polciy defined purposes.
The 'specific policy defined purposes' connect use with rule set
Lisa Phifer: Possible text: "Provide information about <list>, based on an agreed rule set."
Stephanie Perrin: test
Lisa Phifer: @Stephanie we see you
Stephanie Perrin: wonderful!
Greg Aaron: agreed rule set should be "policy"
Lisa Phifer: @Greg +1
Carlton Samuels: @Greg: Yes
Daniel K. Nanghaka: I agree with you @Greg
Daniel K. Nanghaka: Rules are policies
steve metalitz: Presumably the rule set could include a default rule. What to do if not covered by a rule.
Marc Anderson: why agreed policy?
Vicky Sheckler: apologies for joining laate
Marc Anderson: policy is just policy...
Carlton Samuels: @Steve: Yes, a catchall we'd call that
Stephanie Perrin: and applicable law
steve metalitz: Could use on #3 same phrasing as in #2 re "agreed policy."
Vicky Sheckler: we should remove "for specific policy defined peruposes" per Marc Anderson's comment
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: Why is it we want registries striked out?
Carlton Samuels: @Stephanie: Yes, a very important sub-clause
andrew sullivan: My calendar reminds me that I have a conflict in :10
andrew sullivan: so I will have to drop early
steve metalitz: You're identifying registrants, registrars, etc.
Lisa Phifer: "identify and facilitate contact with" refers to the list of entities that follow
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: And if these data are to be used for historical reasons then a gTLD can change to another Registry
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: might not be important
Lisa Phifer: Possible alt text: "A purpose of the RDS is to identify domain contacts, and facilitate contact with them.
Vicky Sheckler: could say identifiy domain contact and faciliate communication w/them
Lisa Phifer: It seems that policy will determine the list of contacts
Lisa Phifer: possible contacts currently include registrar, registrant, admin, tech, and abuse (for WHOIS today)
Lisa Phifer: but policy will determine future contacts that may be provided via RDS
Beth Allegretti: Aren't all of those "contacts"?
It seems redundant.
Greg Aaron: we don't need to enumerate them here -- we probably don;t need
to.
Beth Allegretti: +1 Lisa
Greg Aaron: you need to say both.
If you give mejust a name you ahve identified the contact, but are not facilitating contact with them.
Greg Aaron: +1 with Andrew
steve metalitz: +1 t o Vicky's suggestion re "facilitate communication" instead of "facilitate contact"
andrew sullivan: Alas I have to drop
andrew sullivan: bye all
Greg Aaron: "facilitate communication" is a good construction
Marc Anderson: 4 seems re-dundant with #2
Marika Konings 2: someone called 'Stephanie Perrin' is in Adobe Connect though -an impersonator? ;-)
Lisa Phifer: @Marc, are you proposing deleting #4?
Carlton Samuels: @Alan: +1
Marc Anderson: @Lisa yes, we seem to be having the same discussion we had on #2
steve metalitz: Can you show us #2 again?
Marc Anderson: it might help if we can see both on the screen
Marc Anderson: thank you
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: Exacly not public available
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: are the difference
Vicky Sheckler: agree that "may not be otherwise publicly available' adds no value for the statement of purpose
Marc Anderson: agree, it's true, but doesn't add value for the statement of purpose
Alan Greenberg: list is an example, so we should use wording such as "for example" or "but may not be limited to"
Vicky Sheckler: @metalitz +1
Lisa Phifer: @Steve, you are not proposing deleting all of that information, but rather adding "domain contacts" to #2?
steve metalitz: @ Lisa, correct, or substitute "domain contacts" for "registrants"
Marc Anderson: the word accurate could be added to either purpose if the decision is that it should be included in the purpose statement.
Marika Konings 2: @Steve - note that in #3 we deleted registrars, P/P providers and replaced those with domain contacts. Agree that we do need some consistency - does domain contacts cover broader range than
registrants or not?
Lisa Phifer: @Marika, #2 is information provided, which includes but is not limited to contacts
Lisa Phifer: (that is, name servers etc are information about the domain itself, not contacts)
Marika Konings 2: right, but in the other one we grouped registrars and P/P providers as part of domain contacts
Greg Aaron: SSAC 055:RecommendationThe SSAC recommends that the Registration Data Policy Committee’s charter shouldinclude the requirement to define “accurate registration data” and provide guidance as tohow
to achieve it.
Vicky Sheckler: a big part of building trust in an authoritative database is having some comfort that the data is accurate. in light of this, part of the purpose of the RDS should be to have accuracy to build
such trust
Stephanie Perrin: test
Kal Feher: I think accuracy is a purpose of the way data is collected. it is also a purpose of the transmission mechanism used by RDS (RDAP, port 43 or whatever we choose). but accuracy is not a purpose of
the RDS itself.
Greg Aaron: No, and RDS is not a technical system only.
Ita is also the enveloping policies.
Vicky Sheckler: dissagree with jim
Marina Lewis: All, I need to jump off for a 10:30 meeting.
Bye!
Lisa Phifer: Is the purpose to provide an authoritative source of accurate data?
Lisa Phifer: (sorry A purpose...)
Greg Aaron: yes
Vicky Sheckler: can remove only if concept covered elsese
Vicky Sheckler: elsewhere
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): should we reffer to it as historically accurate :)?
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): or with potentially accurate
Vicky Sheckler: @lisa - like the concept.
consistent with my previous point
Benny Samuelsen / Nordreg AB: authoritative by who?
Vicky Sheckler: @alan - having a purpose of having accurate data is not the same as certifying accuracy
Alan Greenberg: I guess...
Susan Kawaguchi: agree with Steve
Sara Bockey: I need to drop for another meeting.
Thank you all
Carlton Samuels: Gotta go. Bye all
Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): bye all, need to drop
Kal Feher: yay for alt time
Marika Konings 2: yes, you can Stephanie
Michelle DeSmyter: of course
Nathalie Coupet: Bye all
Marika Konings: Firefox works for me...