Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
         boundary="_000_BN6PR13MB18437CAF5F2192CD3878E418D9F60BN6PR13MB1843namp_"

Derived requirement: the data must be available for this stated purpose.  If something is required (as in this case by a contract), then one must have the means to accomplish it. 
 
 
From: Gomes, Chuck [ mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:58 PM
To: Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting
 
I don't question that at all Greg but what is the possible requirement?
 
Chuck

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 21, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Greg Aaron <gca@icginc.com> wrote:

Dear Chuck:

 

It is very difficult to perform DA-D43-R03 (assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats) without looking at registration data.  Review of registration dates, nameservers, contact data, etc. are often required to perform thatdiligence.

 

BTW, this GAC safeguard was then incorporated into the nTLD contracts, Specification 11 paragraph 3b, which says that registry operators are also required to record actions taken as a result of these periodic security checks.

 

So I suggest we leave it in.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:27 PM

To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org

Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting

 

In my review of the eight (8) possible requirements in the attached file, I think it is obvious that none of them are relevant to the RDS and hence should be deleted from the v.4 of the triaged list of possible requirements.  If anyone, disagrees with my assessment, please identify any of the possible requirements that you think are relevant to the RDS and explain why so that the WG can discuss.  If not, I suggest that in our next meeting that quickly finalize a decision to delete them all.

 

Chuck

 

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer

Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:54 AM

To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org

Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting

 

Dear all,

With regard to action item #3 below, attached please find a small excerpt from draft 4 of the triaged possible requirements list, containing only those PRs marked "??" for review and possible deletion. During triage, we could not find a direct link between these PRs and registration directory services and so were unable to assign them codes and keywords.  WG members are therefore asked to consider if and how these flagged PRs are relevant to the RDS.

Best regards,

Lisa

At 12:33 AM 9/21/2016, Marika Konings wrote:

3. Review Draft 4 of triaged possible requirements list

·  Discuss possible deletion of flagged PRs (those marked "??")

·  Discuss WG feedback on phase, code, and keyword mappings

·  Identify essential missing inputs (if any) and plan to include them

 

Action item #2: WG members to review latest version of triaged possible requirements, including specific questions identified, in order to commence deliberations.

 

Action item #3: Staff to circulate possible deletion of flagged PRs to mailing list to encourage input by WG members ahead of next week's meeting

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg