As I said, I have no problem doing this BRIEFLY. But I will point out that the ongoing PDP has the explicit charter to (and I quote verbatim, emphasis mine) "establish gTLD registration data requirements to determine if and why a next generation RDS is needed". I believe that we have general agreement from our chartering organizations that we should not overlap with this PDP and in fact, our recommendations go to the Board which does not under the Bylaws have the authority to overrule the GNSO PDP. Alan At 06/07/2017 02:11 PM, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:

Dear Alan,

I totally agree with you that WHOIS almost does not fit for our current purpose, but I also think that we can (and may be must) say that id does not fit and has to be replaced.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: I am less sure than Carlton that we MUST discuss this. I have no problem with discussing whether the current WHOIS protocol is fit for purpose, but it better be a pretty short discussion! If anyone has a good argument why it IS fit for purpose, it should be shared pretty quickly.

The inability of a 7-bit protocol to handle today's IDN world, and the inability to handle any level of authorization/authentication/gating (which is generally understood to be necessary to allow critical information to be collected but not universally displayed in support of privacy legislation) makes the answer pretty clear. And as the charter Carlton points to indicates, this has been clear for quite some time.

This is a REVIEW team. I believe it is well beyond our scope to debate whether the current protocol can be modified to meet new needs, to specify or design a replacement or to review possible replacements. And I have little interest in debating whether any new protocol should be called WHOIS (pretending it is the same), WHOIS-Mark-2, RDAP, WEIRDS, WIERDS or Betelgeuse.

Alan

At 05/07/2017 10:08 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

...

Dear All: I believe this review will have to answer the question as to whether the current WHOIS protocol is fit to purpose in a evolved DNS environment in one or other job stream. Some may recall that the RDAP is being proposed as a fit and proper replacement.

You may wish for background to examine the IETF charters for Web Extensible Internet Registration Data Service (WEIRDS) from whence came RDAP.

<https://tools.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charters>https://tools.ietf.org/wg/weirds/charters

Best, -Carlton

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:

1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:B4FAKC1/EM3XOvHOPyoJ57PmCR+VxY4KD2MBdt6vWtlFgLD4tOOlcsV3foNFR93KAoIM9yzc2f7ovNf8Z27tswcz7fr1TllQNyArpqDRUCTG3fAIGxT2DaVNoDvfJnqPlCyckJle2pLGGdCKNOvr+w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:

ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001223)(400125100095)(61617095)(400001002128)(400125200095);

_______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list <mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org>RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt

_______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list <mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org>RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt

-- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky