Logo

051040031: RySG Meetings - Shared screen with speaker view
Sue Schuler (RySG Secretariat)
30:21
Welcome to the meeting of the RA/RAA Amendment Discussion Group. Please announce your name before speaking for purposes of the transcript. Please mute your microphone when not speaking to help maintain sound quality. Thanks
Jeffrey Neuman
33:17
sounds good
Catherine Merdinger
33:21
Sounds like a plan
Maxim Alzoba
33:25
ok
Donna Austin, Neustar
41:53
iy
Donna Austin, Neustar
42:03
yes. its the timeline
Donna Austin, Neustar
42:33
but the other information is their argument for the timeline
Catherine Merdinger
43:22
I think Rick is right - I don’t think they’re going to like a staggered transition
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
44:08
I’m up for cutting down to 6 months too!!
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
44:13
:-)
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
45:23
Jim: “no matter how much time we give them, users will use all of that time” — well put.
James Galvin (Afilias)
50:13
i think we offer what we think is reasonable and be willing to extend if we think that is beneficial to this overall negotiation, i.e., offer 6 months but be willing to take on a year or more.
James Galvin (Afilias)
50:56
strictly speaking, I don’t want to run WHOIS any longer than I have to, but as long as I don’t have to make any changes and just keep it running, i’ll concede whatever length of time makes the most sense in our consensus.
Jeffrey Neuman
51:36
Registrars are pretty much locked down on nothing lower than 4000ms (which is the SLA today)
Rubens Kuhl
53:00
Process to change RDAP Profile is a deal-breaker if they insist on it.
Rubens Kuhl
53:25
Everything else (2000 ms, length of WHOIS wind-down) is negotiable IMHO.
Maxim Alzoba
53:31
+1 @Rick
Jeffrey Neuman
53:31
This goes back to the prioritization exercise I talked about a couple of weeks ago which we were not ready then to do
Rubens Kuhl
01:02:03
What happens in every IRT is BC/IPC/GAC trying a 2nd bite at the apple in discussions they lost in the respective PDP.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:02:49
@Rick - yes, now that is happening....but we may want to formalize it for 5 years from now
Jeffrey Neuman
01:07:53
@RIck - I think we agree
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
01:08:21
yup
Jeffrey Neuman
01:11:00
yes
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
01:12:08
Yes… then it’s closer to 7.6/7.7
Jeffrey Neuman
01:12:55
For example, SubPro will have an IRT but none of it is on consensus policies
J.C.
01:13:38
Are you « searching » for something Donna? :) (Sorry)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:13:55
all i find is blank space JC
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:27
I think we need to recommend RYsg to send such rsep requests
Ashley Heineman
01:14:59
Are they just providing cover for themselves? So they don't get criticized by other parts of the community for not insisting on searchability?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:15:14
If they are amenable to agree to them
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:14
I think that's a part of it Ashley
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:44
It was Marrakech
Jeffrey Neuman
01:15:52
I worry about the PR spin for us on this. We file requests, ICANN makes them public and halts us.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:16:00
I only heard about it and I believe it was pretty hot in the room.
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:20
but without a notification folks will not know that
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:14
On search ability, I still see no point in adding search to RDAP, where search doesn't exist today in the WHOIS we are talking about replacing with RDAP.
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:18
or add 7 capchas to a search form
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:03
@Donna - I agree, but ICANN controls the information flow and the PR
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:07
We will lose every time
Sam Demetriou
01:19:29
I think we should not lose sight of the fact that ICANN pushed this out until there is some kind of technical standard
Sam Demetriou
01:19:34
that looks like progress to me
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:49
@I agree there are legitimate reasons....but when do facts and legitimacy determine the outcome :)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:12
I accept that Jeff.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:20:32
@Sam - ICANN pushed our RDAP until there was a standard (they pushed through IETF) and look where we are now ;)
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:38
@Sam, it's a very small progress consider how much they are off-base in this topic.
Beth Bacon
01:21:39
I disagree- It could be spun as registries further restricting access to data and inflame epdp arguments. It’s not just DNS Abuse where we are targets
Beth Bacon
01:22:08
While that is untrue…I would expect the argument
Jeffrey Neuman
01:23:18
@Beth - I think you are agreeing with me?
Rubens Kuhl
01:24:05
It's like a prisoner dilemma, but registries other than Neustar and Afilias are the prisoners and we are free.
Rubens Kuhl
01:24:26
I mean, Neustar and Afilias are the prisoners.
Beth Bacon
01:24:30
I don’t know Jeff…has that ever happened ;)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:24:48
@Beth - once or twice, but always a cause to celebrate
Rubens Kuhl
01:24:59
So when we say to them to not file RSEPs, we are asking them to take one for the team.
Beth Bacon
01:25:43
Hahah I do agree that PR is a risk. I don’t know that it’s prohibitive of going ahead with the option to initiate RSEPs but it is a consideration
Jeffrey Neuman
01:25:54
@Rubens - we are telling them that either they accept the contractual requirement to do RDAP Searchability (whatever that means) or file an RSEP and take the PR hit and the ire of the community who like Beth said will make up arguments
Jeffrey Neuman
01:26:30
We should try our best not to put registries in that position
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:32
Well this is not a priority for Registrars (as it doesn't apply)
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
01:27:44
I can tell you that’s precisely the type of argument that IPC/BC folks would make. Not sure this is on anyone’s radar at the moment, but it could become an arrow in the quiver.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:49
But we would be agreeing to an as of yet defined service
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
01:27:56
+1 to Sam’s point
Jeffrey Neuman
01:28:48
Next steps?
Rick Wilhelm (Verisign)
01:28:51
sorry… gotta drop
Jeffrey Neuman
01:28:55
Is there a deliverable
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:49
yes
Catherine Merdinger
01:30:00
Thanks everyone!