Logo

Michelle DeSmyter's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Sue Schuler
27:34
Welcome to the meeting of the RA/RAA Amendment Discussion Group with ICANN Staff. Please announce your name before speaking for purposes of the transcript. Please mute your microphone when not speaking to help maintain sound quality. Thanks
J.C. Vignes (Uniregistry)
31:45
Good evening everyone, apologies for my tardiness
Russ Weinstein
41:45
Well said Rick
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
45:19
“Total number of RDAP queries responded (via the Path Segment Specification, as defined in RFC 7482) that were received during the period”
Jeff Neuman
46:19
should we say RFC 7482 (or its successor)
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
48:01
and yes, “or it’s successor”
Rubens Kuhl
49:11
+1 to "successor" too
James Galvin (Afilias)
49:42
question regarding “or it’s successor” - what is the obligation on compliance with the new vs the old, i.e., have to be compliant upon publication, 180 days later, some announcement?
Rubens Kuhl
52:33
I believe to apply to "RFC xxx Obsoletes yyy", but not to "RFC xxx Updates yyy", which is used to additions.
Brian King
54:58
in the real world, that concern can be addressed with notice and grace period timing
Brian King
55:21
(in practice) (not that we're not in the real world)
Rubens Kuhl
56:27
Looks good to me.
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:48
If the change is deemed material
Rubens Kuhl
01:01:00
Although ICANN deems everything material...
J.C. Vignes (Uniregistry)
01:01:48
Thanks @Graeme, my point
Graeme Bunton
01:04:14
I think it would be kinda like the process we're in now. All Rrs get notified that a change is going to be worked on, if they wish to participate they can engage with the SG
Jeff Neuman
01:06:22
I agree we should have a streamlined process for certain changes to the profiles, but we also have to not override contractual rights
Rubens Kuhl
01:07:00
So we should define where the picket fence is located: contract or profile, but not both.
Jeff Neuman
01:07:01
And we need to define what it means for "endorsement". The current RySG and RrSG charters do not contemplate something like this
Graeme Bunton
01:09:59
That's a good point Rick
Jeff Neuman
01:10:10
I thought that the profiles were not complete
Jeff Neuman
01:10:33
even things like searchability
Jeff Neuman
01:10:35
?
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
01:11:34
the policy isn’t decided for searchability… therefore they couldn’t be complete in this way
Jeff Neuman
01:11:49
If Rick is right, and I have no reason to think he is not, then I do agree with him that we don't need a way to modify
Rubens Kuhl
01:12:37
Perhaps if we manage to create a possible use case for this, even if speculative, than we might work on an amendment process.
J.C. Vignes (Uniregistry)
01:20:04
Plus-oning to @Rick (as a Lawyer :) )
Jeff Neuman
01:20:39
That's fair Karla
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:52
This one is good as an action item
Zoe Bonython
01:20:57
I’m taking notes
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
01:25:14
+1
Brian King
01:25:28
I need to drop. Thanks, all.