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 Wednesday 19 October 2016 at 05:00 UTC. MP3: <http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXzI...> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-nextgen-rds-pdp-19oct16-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** 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, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday 19 October 2016 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear All, Welcome to the Next-Gen RDS PDP WG call on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 05:00 UTC. Nathalie Peregrine:Meeting page:https://community.icann.org/x/eBy4Aw Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ):Hello All Benny / Nordreg AB:Morning everyone Stephanie Perrin:test Stephanie Perrin:test2 Michele Neylon:anything before 9am is undesirable Nathalie Peregrine:reading you! Alex Deacon:I feel like I've been on ICANN calls all day. started at 6am for me and ending the day with a 10 pm RDS call! Chuck Gomes:Much appreciated Alex Susan Kawaguchi:sorry I am late Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome Susan! Marika Konings:sorry, just needed to make sure to save the updated version :-) Kal Feher:perhaps it should say "based on concensus policies". Greg Shatan:"agreed policy" is an odd term. Is there another kind of policy? lawrence olawale-roberts 2:this looks okay to me Marc Anderson:I tend to agree greg... I thought it would be sufficent to just say policy (rather than agreed policy). Policy is either policy or it isn't. Alex Deacon:the first purpose also used the word "providing" Alex Deacon:...i think Alex Deacon:I don't object to keeping it in, but as we did for the previous purpose i think less may be more here. Kal Feher:registries can also add data to RDS via their own policies. Kal Feher:these would be added via RSEP. but their reason for existing would be a policy specific to one TLD Lisa Phifer:During last week's call, there was a decision taken to not try to enumerate all of the information, or all of the types of contacts in the next item, but rather to acknowledge that policy will further detail this. Greg Shatan:Thanks, Kal. That would be beyond "consensus policy." Maxim Alzoba (FAITID ):temporary policy adopted by the board - mentioned in the Registry Agreement Michele Neylon:manage?? andrew sullivan:apologies that I joined late. I did have some trouble with the Connect application (and let me again register my deep complaint about this technology), but my tardiness is my own fault. Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome Andrew, please raise the AC issues to us: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> so we can provide assistance Michele Neylon:Andrew the plugin / app gets confused with the new hostname Greg Shatan:i refer to managing the data itself. andrew sullivan:@Nathatlie: This wasn't a technical issue. The complaint can't be solved by staff. It's a policy problem. This all should be WebRTC in the interests of open standards and so on. But I have no strict techsupport issue. Thanks Greg Shatan:Not to using the data to manage domain names, etc. Stephanie Perrin:test 7 Nathalie Peregrine:test received Marika Konings:I think the idea of using a catch all term at this stage would be to avoid having to detail it now, but it may get further defined at a later stage through the policy requirements. Marika Konings:as Chuck said :-) Lisa Phifer:The text that was replaced by "domain contacts" included "registries, registrars" - the concern is that "domain contacts" can be misunderstood to be just admin and tech contact Marika Konings:Andrew, could you repeat your suggestion in the chat? andrew sullivan:I think what I'm suggesting is "contacts related to the domain name, including those directly related to the domain name and also those involved in the registration sytem as rellevant" andrew sullivan:or something like that Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):"All possible" seems to be bit broad , for example typical company has lots of contacts releavnt to the domain name Kal Feher:@maxim these are contacts within the Registry Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the list of Registry contacts in GDD portal is more than 16, and most of those should not leak , and used for intaraction with ICANN Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*interaction Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example - billing contact of Registry is not for Registrars or Registrants Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):law is still in power , despite what is invented in GNSO andrew sullivan:I don't understand why recommending that applicable law be applied helps us. It's impossible to develop a policy that ignores applicable local law Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@andrew, some of current WHOIS set of policies there is a conflict with local law Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for some of jurisdictions andrew sullivan:Or rather, it's impossible to develop a policy that insists a policy imposes a rule extra-legally Michele Neylon:Andrew - you' think so Michele Neylon:but unfortunately ICANN has done so repeatedly Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Michele David Cake:Andrew, just how far ICANN can go in its efforts to ignore local law is the subject of an ICANN policy, about which there is some current debate, you see Michele Neylon:*some*? :) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):most Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also for Registries there are no procedure currently to deal with non-WHOIS conflicts with law (will RDS fall here :)? andrew sullivan:I believe the latest ICANN bylaws restrict it from imposing anything like rules that are extra-legal in local jurisdictions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):formally ICANN can violate their own bylaws Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):at least nothing happened in the past andrew sullivan:@Maxim no, not any more Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):hope so Stephanie Perrin:test8 Stephanie Perrin:test9 andrew sullivan:@stephanie: got it andrew sullivan:8 and 9 David Cake:I would be happier without it. Lisa Phifer:The goals Greg is asking about were deleted Marika Konings:as Lisa noted these were deleted, but with the understanding that these did underpin the statement of purpose (but it was felt that these didn't belong in the statement of purpose) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Registry Agreement is California law, and for Registries outside of US it makes conflicts with local law Lisa Phifer:See Goals for each Purpose, (iii) To provide a framework that enables compliance with applicable laws Lisa Phifer:That text did remain - it was the Overall Goal that was deleted andrew sullivan:It seems like a preamble remark to me andrew sullivan:Oh, good point andrew sullivan:I misunderstood that bit andrew sullivan:Got it andrew sullivan:still there, I agree Benny / Nordreg AB:sound gone? Alex Deacon:no sound here... Greg Shatan:I hear nothing, Kal Feher:I hear nothing either Susan Kawaguchi:me neither Daniel K. Nanghaka:I am not hearing anything Greg Shatan:That I heard. Michele Neylon:I hear Marika :) Holly Raiche:Folks - I have to leave this call now - I have a teaching commitment. Apologies Nathalie Peregrine:Thanks Holly Lisa Phifer:Item 1 begins "A purpose of gTLD registration data" while Items 2/3 begin "A purpose of RDS" - which is Item 4 in reference to? lawrence olawale-roberts 2: audio off on my end lawrence olawale-roberts 2:okay now Lisa Phifer:@Marc, yes that text was deleted from Item 2 Marc Anderson:thank you Lisa lawrence olawale-roberts 2:Could we substitute the word Provide in red with "maintain" lawrence olawale-roberts 2:sorry Manage i meant not maintain. Lisa Phifer:"A purpose of gTLD registration data" is also used in Item 1, so it would be consistent to use that same phrasing in Item 4. andrew sullivan:I'm having trouble with un-handinf. Sorry andrew sullivan:un-handing andrew sullivan:even Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the string might be not registered , but not available (reserved) Michele Neylon:using whois to check availability = terrible idea Michele Neylon:it's really unreliable + there are rate limits Greg Shatan:record of "all" domain name registrations? andrew sullivan:"To provide a record of whether a domain name is registered, available for registration, ot unavailable for registration"? Greg Shatan:What do you suggest as an alternative, Michele? Kal Feher:whois can't truly be used to tell you that a domain is available. that is not a purpose of whois currently Marc Anderson:I like Andrew's suggestion Michele Neylon:Greg - we use EPP or other simpler services just to check if a domain is available or not Benny / Nordreg AB:No no no Benny / Nordreg AB:it can be reserved Kal Feher:agree with Benny Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):no EPP for non-Registrars :) Michele Neylon:Greg - a domain can be reserved / blocked or somehow blocked or something and not all are listed as such in whois Michele Neylon:Maxim - not directly no, but they can check via a registrar's site Benny / Nordreg AB:but its not black and white Michele Neylon:DAC works pretty well Michele Neylon:with new TLDs whois probably won't tel you if a domain is set at some crazy premium price either :) Alex Deacon:I prefer the purpose as edited in the doc. Andrews suggestion seems more narrow/restrictive than necessary. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michele, it might not be possible to check it via EPP, until the Registry implements epp price check Kal Feher:we typically respond with no data found for non registered labels. that includes reserved names which will never be registered Michele Neylon:Maxim - I know - we have to load some strings into a black list Alex Deacon:Yes - agree with stephanie that we should remove thte stuff after the comma. Kal Feher:support removing everything after the comma Lisa Phifer:It seems the RDS can provide records for domain names that are registered, but not necessarily say anything about domain names that are not registered Kal Feher:availability should not be a purpose. it is the purpose of other services. Michele Neylon:that is not whois Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Reserved names are reserved by the Registry according to policies of the TLD (including enforced by ICANN) Kal Feher:godaddy uses EPP for that greg Michele Neylon:and zonefiles and other technologies Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):we respond with can not be registered, and accredited registrars have access to the reserved lists Michele Neylon:just because a string isn't in whois doesn't mean anything Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we add "for registration" after "is available" ? Greg Shatan:It means it's not registered by someone else. Greg Shatan:It's reliable enough for the purpose of a potential registrant seeing if the domain desired is already owned by someone else. Benny / Nordreg AB:What Michele descripes are only available for registrars... most people check other ways Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Michele Michele Neylon:benny - our websites "hide" those details though Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Benny, it is not possible to understand if the string is reserved without Registrar Michele Neylon:+1 - record of registration = correct Greg Shatan:I think "available" means one thing to registrars and another to potential registrants. Kal Feher:typically the tools used by consumers will be using EPP and zone file access to return availability. EPP is the most reliable. no capable provider will use whois to deliver an availability service to internet users Michele Neylon:+1 Kal Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if Registry does not add "can not be registered" Benny / Nordreg AB:@Maxim I agree Greg Shatan:Kal, can you give me an example of such a tool? Benny / Nordreg AB:but if RDS are to replace whois we need to look out of the narrow registrar scope Kal Feher:Goddady's availability tool. Kal Feher:or blacknight's Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Kel it works only for TLDs where those Registrars are accredited ... no EPP for non contracted Registrars usually Kal Feher:you have to remember that the people offering whois, generally know it's weaknesses. when they offer an availability service, it might sit next to their whois service, but underneath it will use EPP andrew sullivan:I agree with Greg mostly. Why I suggested the words I did Benny / Nordreg AB:have to leave no have fun Michele Neylon:checking a domain on the godaddy website (or anyone else's) isn't using whois Lisa Phifer:@Andrew, can you recap your suggested wording for 4 please? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):of historical data? Greg Shatan:Are you saying that when I go to GoDaddy's Whois page, I'm not using Whois?? Michele Neylon:Greg - if you do a domain search on their site you're not using whois Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):data is a snapshot of was true (hopefully) at the moment of the last change andrew sullivan:To provide a record of whether a domain name is registered, available for registration, ot unavailable for registration Michele Neylon:if you go to their whois server you are Michele Neylon:two different things Kal Feher:@maxim, currently historical data is out of scope, so you are suggesting an expansion of the current use Michele Neylon:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_sear... - check if a domain is available Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Kal, the data does not change in real time, thus it is old and at some moment of time it might differ from real Michele Neylon:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__whois.blacknight.com_&d=... do a whois lookup andrew sullivan:@Lise: did you see it? "To provide a record of whether a domain name is registered, available for registration, ot unavailable for registration"?" Michele Neylon:two totally different things Kal Feher:it definately changes in real time Greg Shatan:Got it, Michele Lisa Phifer:@Andrew, yes, I have added to notes for further consideration Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Kal, when registrant changes his mobile number, it is not reflected on full auto andrew sullivan:I am completely opposed to adding 5 Kal Feher:real time relative to the registry Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Kal, it relevant only to the moment of update, which is always in the past Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We have not decided that it is a single database - it is for later deliberations Michele Neylon:Greg - the list of attorneys doesn't get updated as quickly as domains get registered and changed Kal Feher:ok. I see where you are going, but I don't think that is a relevant clarification. historical data implies data that is older than what currently sits in the registry. there are whowas services that provide that. Kal Feher:don't support retaining point 5. agree with Andrew Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):is is reflection of the registration data, not the source Greg Shatan:I don't see where throughput ultimately affects accuracy. Clearly we need to have practical approaches. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the source of the registration data is the contract with registrant Michele Neylon:Greg - you're ignoring the technical realities Michele Neylon:there can often be a lag between what someone has entered on our end and what is reflected elsewhere Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and actions under such a contract (even click through one) Michele Neylon:be that a DNS server change or a contact update Kal Feher:@maxim I understand your point but I think you are perhaps on too fine a linguistic tangent that is going to to more to mislead than enable our discussions Greg Shatan:I want to work within the technical realities and achieve a practical level of accuracy. I'm not a perfectionist.... Michele Neylon:Greg - oh come on :) Lisa Phifer:Note that this WG's charter asks us to consider whether any accuracy improvements are required - this is explicitly in scope, although the WG can recommend no changes are required Michele Neylon:Greg - if you want to sit down in India I can show you where the delays / issues can crop up Michele Neylon:EPP servers exploding Greg Shatan:Lags are completely understandable and not the issue when it comes to seeking "accuracy." Kal Feher:boo for regular time. this time is perfect. :) Greg Shatan:Michele, happy to do so if it involves beer. Michele Neylon:right more coffee time Michele Neylon:Greg - it always involves beer or coffee :) Michele Neylon:ciao Greg Shatan:Bye Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye