[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff?

[Brenden Kuerbis]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> fyi - this email bring up several things that are going on.
>
> esp:
> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm
>
>
> i am also lightly participating in the IETF effort which is  referred to
> below.  it is called  'weirds,' which is not yet an IETF WG, but is
> applying to become one.
>

I agree Avri. If this group ever settles on a charter, it will be important
for noncommercial interests to keep an eye on its work.  For those who
might not have the time to dig in (and Avri, feel free to supplement my
brief description), the group is essentially considering developing a
protocol to standardize access to Whois (IP Address and DNS) registry
data.  Similar efforts have been attempted in the past, but this time it
seems to have support from key players including ICANN, RIRs, Internet
security community, etc. and therefore may get off the ground. That ICANN
and the RIRs are on board is important, because it provide some means for
enforcing adoption if a protocol ever emerges (similar to how new gTLD
registries must deploy DNSSEC).  One key issue will be how such a protocol
supports various jurisdictional requirements for data privacy, etc.



>
> speaking of IETF WGs, another interesting non WG discussion list is:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/current/threads.html
>


Another interesting area to follow. Particularly as one can see the
concept/terminology of Internet "identity" emerging and becoming consistent
across various standards and policy making institutions.


B



>
> avri
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Francisco Arias <francisco.arias at icann.org>
> > Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff?
> > Date: 20 February 2012 12:59:29 EST
> > To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Dave Piscitello <
> dave.piscitello at icann.org>
> > Cc: "'ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org'" <ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org>
> >
> >
> > Hello Steven,
> >
> > You beat us on sending the email to let everyone know about it :-)
> >
> > This draft roadmap is form implementing SSAC's SAC 051, which recommends
> > the replacement of the WHOIS protocol. The Board passed a resolution in
> > Dakar directing the production of this roadmap, which we just published
> in
> > draft (rough) form for community input.
> >
> > Note that we are planning a session in Costa Rica. We are envisioning the
> > evolution of the roadmap document throughout two public comment periods
> > and be ready for Board/Community action by Prague meeting in June.
> >
> > Your input is more than welcome:
> >
> >
> http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > __
> >
> > Francisco.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/20/12 9:48 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Further to this topic, I note that the ICANN staff posted on Saturday a
> >> "Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS)"
> >> and is asking for public comment on it.   See
> >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb12-en.htm.
> >>
> >> Steve Metalitz
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Metalitz, Steven
> >> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 6:53 PM
> >> To: 'Dave Piscitello'
> >> Cc: ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org
> >> Subject: RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff?
> >>
> >> Thanks for this helpful response, Dave.  I agree this work is very
> >> important and I have no reason at all to question your opinion that it
> >> has enormous merit. I am just having a hard time squaring your
> >> description with the CEO's statement that " ICANN staff members have
> >> developed and recommended a solution" and that this solution "is being
> >> considered for adoption as a standard" by the IETF.  I hope you can help
> >> me gain a better understanding of the apparent discrepancy.
> >>
> >> I looked briefly at the IETF mailing list for which you provided a link.
> >> My sense is that this IETF group is discussing a charter for a working
> >> group that would try to develop something I would describe as a
> >> "solution."  The draft charter I reviewed proposed the following
> >> milestones (and again it seems that the charter has not yet been
> >> approved, and I don't know the procedure for that):
> >>
> >> [start + 2 months] Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for
> >>   publication as Informational RFC.
> >>
> >>   [start + 6 months] Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for
> >>   publication on the standards track
> >>
> >> This suggests to me that this process is many months away from producing
> >> a solution that would be considered for adoption as an IETF standard.  I
> >> am sure I may be mistaken, but if so I hope someone will correct me.
> >>
> >> I also see on that mailing list some references to a document
> >> draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00.txt which I take it might be the
> >> "solution" that "ICANN staff members have recommended."  What is the
> >> status of that document within the IETF process?
> >>
> >> While I am sure I might have missed it, was that document circulated to
> >> the IRDWG?  If not, would it be possible to do so?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your patience as I try to find my way through these
> questions.
> >>
> >>
> >> Steve Metalitz
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello at icann.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:09 PM
> >> To: Metalitz, Steven
> >> Cc: ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org
> >> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120220/2515d391/attachment.html>