Logo

051040031: RySG Meetings - Shared screen with speaker view
Sue Schuler (RySG Secretariat)
21:08
Welcome to the meeting of the RySG to discuss Searchable RDAP. Please announce your name before speaking for purposes of the transcript. Please mute your microphone when not speaking to help maintain sound quality. Thanks
Kurt Pritz
26:55
For clarity: Are any RDAP searchability implementations an impossibility until the standard is created?
Marc Anderson (Verisign / RySG)
29:06
I wouldn't say "impossible" Kurt. I am not aware of a standard for the existing searchability requirements.
Matthew Crossman (Amazon)
30:18
+1 Marc
James Galvin (Afilias)
31:24
note that we have WHOIS searchability today. it’s varies widely owing to a lack of standard. we could certainly “allow” the same in RDAP but personally, that would be wrong.
Jeffrey Neuman
31:31
Technically our starting position was "no"
Jeffrey Neuman
31:38
This was our first response to them
Maxim Alzoba
34:40
it does not exist formally (search able rdap)
Maxim Alzoba
35:42
what happens if searchable Rdap is a licensed activity (patent holder, e. t. c :)
Alan Woods (Donuts)
36:49
Thanks to Matt and Kurt - thought these were really great points.
Jeffrey Neuman
39:09
Yeah, what Donna didn't say was the sneaky way that ICANN initially introduced this subject. They first tried to sneak it in by definition "Directory Service" as including both RDAP and legacy WHOIS. It was a backdoor way to introduce searchability until some of us on the negotiating team called them out on it. When we did, they finally separated out this topic.
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
39:21
“holding us to a bargain we did not make” … well-put by Kurt
Jeffrey Neuman
40:27
ICANN never looks at the wholistic picture (sigh). They are doing this solely to be able to argue to the Community that there is no difference contractually between what was done for legacy WHOIS and what will be done with RDAP.
Jeffrey Neuman
40:46
Its simple optics for them. Nothing less, nothing more.
Quoc Pham - GoDaddy Registry
46:54
+1 Marc, agreed, it's written a little like pseudo SQL in mind
Maxim Alzoba
47:19
select ANY ;)
Quoc Pham - GoDaddy Registry
47:33
hehehe
Jeffrey Neuman
51:55
Not user perspective, but "optics" to the ICANN community
Jeffrey Neuman
52:44
Yeah, we can say the Full SG supports the position of the negotiating team.
Jeffrey Neuman
53:41
no need to apologize, and yes it bring back some trauma :)
Jeffrey Neuman
55:23
@Marc - and I agree this presents lots of privacy issues :)
Jeffrey Neuman
57:31
@Marc - I wish they thought practically like that. ICANN is more like a government that wants to check of the box that they made the registries contractually agree to implement RDAP with SLAs and that they did not allow the registries to in turn weaken the agreement
Quoc Pham - GoDaddy Registry
58:22
For example https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7482#section-3.2.1 ... better than nothing? ... of course individual server policies will determine usage - so there is a presence of "searchability" in built
Jeffrey Neuman
58:56
@Marc - If ICANN had someone other than Francisco as the point person, that might resonate. But....sigh.....
Jeffrey Neuman
59:32
I like Francisco, but once he sets his mind to something, it never changes.
Marc Anderson (Verisign / RySG)
59:39
@Jeff - I know, probably just wishful thinking on my part
Quoc Pham - GoDaddy Registry
01:04:09
Agreed Jim
Quoc Pham - GoDaddy Registry
01:04:20
and all that within 2000ms
Jeffrey Neuman
01:04:56
@Quoc - We have said from the beginning that the SLAs did not apply to searchability IF that were implemented
James Galvin (Afilias)
01:05:15
Ha! 2000ms. My position is that no SLAs on search and search only for authenticated queries.
Quoc Pham - GoDaddy Registry
01:05:20
sorry Jeff ... my humour doesn't translate over chat very well.
J.C. Vignes
01:05:28
Beers were in Montreal @Rick :-)
Donna Austin, Chair RySG
01:05:34
Graeme had the beers=Montreal
Quoc Pham - GoDaddy Registry
01:06:09
for that Jeff, I can apologise for ...
Jeffrey Neuman
01:06:49
@Quoc - I should apologize....still recovering from last week
James Galvin (Afilias)
01:09:21
of course Jeff.
Kurt Pritz
01:09:28
This is a bit snarky but under the banner of ICANN wanting RDAP to be just like Whois: ICANN offered TLD applicants something in exchange for adopting Searchable Whois. (A TLD application point.)In that line, maybe ICANN can offer TLD operators something for adopting Searchable RDAP. (And then TLD operators can decide whether to accept it.)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:10:08
@Marc - Correct
Jeffrey Neuman
01:10:30
you have hit on one of the biggest issues for me
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:35
if there is no option to remove searchable who is - it might be a good idea to limit it to the local jurisdiction LEAs strictly
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:50
I mean for the registries using it
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:33
the answer would be - join your LEAs ranks and enjoy the data ;)
Donna Austin, Chair RySG
01:12:36
Sue, can you go back one slide please
Kurt Pritz
01:12:44
A backend provider signaling that it plans not to provide Searchable RDAP might trigger multiple simultaneous RSEPs
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:29
logical
Jeffrey Neuman
01:13:54
That's the other problem, which we cannot discuss here...…(anti-trust issues)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:25
We cant have that discussion as a group
Jeffrey Neuman
01:16:45
I think the issue of not all back-ends choosing to offer it or the concept that they may charge for it as a value add, but any more details we probably should seek counsel on that.
Marc Anderson (Verisign / RySG)
01:18:09
I need to drop. Thanks all... great discussion.
Donna Austin, Chair RySG
01:18:15
PDT
J.C. Vignes
01:18:24
@Maxim: PDT
J.C. Vignes
01:19:41
Have to run, sorry
Matthew Crossman (Amazon)
01:20:16
Great discussion, thanks everyone