I think there are two parts to your question. First, the Registry Stakeholder
Group (RySG) request for reconsideration that triggered this proposal; perhaps
someone else in this list (from the RySG) can speak to that.
The second part would be ICANN organization’s proposal to address the RySG
re
> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francisco
> Arias
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:46 PM
> To: Andrew Newton
> Cc: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [regext] FW: Proposal to remove RDAP from the Thick Whois
> CL&D Policy (was Proposed Pat
In article <83c4fe76-52e8-48ed-b6c2-0691555d3...@icann.org> you write:
>I think there are two parts to your question. First, the Registry Stakeholder
>Group (RySG) request for reconsideration that triggered this proposal;
>perhaps someone else in this list (from the RySG) can speak to that.
I too
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <83c4fe76-52e8-48ed-b6c2-0691555d3...@icann.org> you write:
>>I think there are two parts to your question. First, the Registry Stakeholder
>>Group (RySG) request for reconsideration that triggered this proposal;
>>perhaps someone e
I can't process this without understanding what deficiencies are known, not
addressed by RDAP or provably uncommercial.
Assistance or speculation invited.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 22, 2016, at 16:48, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
> the
> RDAP profile replicates the known deficiencies of WHOIS –
> Em 22 de set de 2016, à(s) 15:56:000, Hollenbeck, Scott
> escreveu:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francisco
>> Arias
>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:46 PM
>> To: Andrew Newton
>> Cc: regext@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [regex
> Em 22 de set de 2016, à(s) 15:46:000, Francisco Arias
> escreveu:
>
> I think there are two parts to your question. First, the Registry Stakeholder
> Group (RySG) request for reconsideration that triggered this proposal;
> perhaps someone else in this list (from the RySG) can speak to that.
> Em 22 de set de 2016, à(s) 17:39:000, Andrew Newton escreveu:
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> In article <83c4fe76-52e8-48ed-b6c2-0691555d3...@icann.org> you write:
>>> I think there are two parts to your question. First, the Registry
>>> Stakeholder Group (RySG) r
> Em 22 de set de 2016, à(s) 17:55:000, Dave Piscitello
> escreveu:
>
> I can't process this without understanding what deficiencies are known, not
> addressed by RDAP or provably uncommercial.
>
> Assistance or speculation invited.
The RDS PDP WG has a gigantic laundry list of what deficie
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>
> There are two angles to commercial feasibility: one is whether implementing
> RDAP is feasible; RDAP is a generic protocol that can be tailored very
> differently by each use case, and being from one of the ccTLDs that
> implemented it (
Hi John
> On 23/09/2016, at 7:52 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article <83c4fe76-52e8-48ed-b6c2-0691555d3...@icann.org> you write:
>> I think there are two parts to your question. First, the Registry
>> Stakeholder Group (RySG) request for reconsideration that triggered this
>> proposal;
>> pe
<
I'm looking at the new TLD registry agreement. Could
you point out the part where it says they can't do that?
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
FWIW, version 1.0 of the gTLD RDAP profile (i.e., what was requested to be
implemented) can be found at
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en
--
Francisco
On 9/22/16, 2:40 PM, "Andrew Newton" wrote:
That's a fair observation. While I am not sure I r
> On 23/09/2016, at 10:18 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>
>> <> and Display
>> (CL&D) Policy with ICANN’s request for registry operators to implement a new
>> standard for registration data display.
>>
>> In addition, ICANN’s request to implement the new standard includes a
>> requirement to
>> ado
Jay,
As far as I know, ICANN has never said it agrees with that claim.
You can listen to ICANN’s presentation of the issue and proposed way forward in
the latest Thick Whois Implementation Review Team in the first minutes of the
recording at
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/483
15 matches
Mail list logo
