On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 09:13:37PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

To what extent do the recommendations of the Privacy & Proxy Services PDP recommendations affect this? For those who may not be aware, the recommendations are awaiting Board approval and the Board is waiting to act while it considers GAC advice; the GAC

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 09:13:39PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

See the GAC Communique from Helsinki for their input on the Privacy & Proxy Services PDP recommendations.

For the purposes of our discussion, it doesn't matter what that PDP comes up with or what the result is. If ICANN somehow figures out a way to impose contractual terms on such services (and as I said, I believe it to be windmill-tilting of the first order, but $5 and my opinion will get you a coffee in many cities), then relevant fields can be added without any difficulty to RDAP output. On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 09:13:39PM +0000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Note that a lot of work is currently be done in the GNSO with regard to RDAP implementation for gTLDs. ICANN staff has been discussing a RDAP Profile with the Thick Whois PDP Implementation Review Team (IRT) and is expected to post a final profile on 31 July. The results of this work could impact our work, especially with regard to RDAP.

The RDAP implementation for gTLDs is actually the only thing that caused me to be interested in this present WG. IMO, the RDAP implementation for gTLDs is miserably deficient and misses almost all of the benefit of RDAP, and when I said this to staff they said, "Policy, PDP going on, go over there." So I have come over here. I cannot say that I find this method of working particularly salubrious, but I understand why it happens this way. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com