<the hat drifts slightly closer> Just to add, ICANN Org hopes to start to be more proactive in facilitating the rollout of new registry technologies moving forward, while retaining measures to address security, stability and competition issues.
We hope to be able to talk a bit more about our plans at the ICANN DNS Symposium which will be held on 25 September 2024 in Santa Marta, Colombia: https://www.icann.org/ids G. > On 25 Jul 2024, at 10:38, Gavin Brown <gavin.br...@icann.org> wrote: > > Hi George and Scott, > > <takes hat off, but leaves it sort of floating somewhere close to the top of > head> > > This WG, or whichever WG ends up doing this work (if any), should not be > hesitant to take on work because of ICANN. The IETF should support a much > wider audience than gTLD registries and registrars. This initiative has come > from the ccTLD world, and it would be unfair to those operators to make their > lives difficult "because ICANN". > > G. > >> On 25 Jul 2024, at 03:58, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote: >> >> I think thats wise. Well said Scott. >> >> I shouldn't put words in people's mouths but back in the CRISP days >> discussing whois replacement, I got a sense that the "whois problem" >> excised the ICANN board and seniors quite a lot. Maybe it was down to >> personalities, personal interests, but the idea of some consistency in >> data management was big. >> >> I am less sure modern ICANN thinks like that. I don't understand the >> constituencies who make up "decision making" in this space. I would >> hope the contracts don't say literally "whois on port 43" but a more >> nuanced statement of public data which means RDAP can be grandfathered >> in instead of some "no not like that" outcome. >> >> And in like sense if it said ".. its EPP specified over <here>" then >> we might find ourselves in a difficult place if we said "its not EPP" >> but if we can say "EPP is now defined by ..." then we'd be on smoother >> grounds. >> >> Or not. It's ICANN. >> >> I fully expect (based on what I think I've read) that some people here >> say "its not EPP if it's not XML and SOAP" and maybe they're right. >> But the intent is to have extensible provisioning. If the fit now is >> for a HTTPS REST method, it's extensible, and it's for provisioning, >> I'm more of a mind to call it EPP-ng than "not EPP" >> >> -G >> >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org > > -- > Gavin Brown > Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > https://www.icann.org > -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
