[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Public comment period on RDAP closing 18/03

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

> On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:32 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I also agree with the IAB position, and would be happy to see NCSG
> endorse that position.
> 
> One consideration, though, is how it will affect your alliance with the
> RrSG.  Is this a capital expense they want there to be a commitment to. 
> Would they agree?  While this is not a consideration for me, I do advise
> thinking that through.  Does not change my position, but those of you
> fighting in the trenches on the WG might want to think about that.

That?s a very fair point. We are effectively endorsing the implementation of a system before a PDP that is just beginning is supposed to make a determination on whether or not it is necessary to use it at all.

I expect that use of RDAP will be found to be necessary, but see how we are jumping the gun endorsing its use, even in the absence of any features that require other policy considerations.

> Also, is this in scope for either the WG or even the GNSO?  And how
> would anyone force the Registrars to do it?

I believe so. Why wouldn?t it be within the scope of the WG and GNSO? Am I missing something?

And registrars can be forced to do it via changes in the RAA, right? I?m certain they will be all over any work that may lead to changes in their contractual obligations, so will hopefully be part of the discussion and final decision. I don?t imagine they are ever happy about spending money to implement ICANN policies, but suspect they?ve seen this coming for a while now. I may, of course, be delusional. :)

Thanks.

Amr