Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter

[Antoin Verschuren <[e-mail]>]

Ok, perhaps some clarification.

The broadening of the charter is not to broaden the scope of EPP or RDAP.
Both EPP and RDAP have always been protocols to serve any "internet infrastructure identifier registry”, be it TLD’s RIR’s, ENUM registries, 2nd/3th/4th/.. level domain registries, so currently basically domains or IP’s or anything that does something DNS, but we have never limited the protocols to be used by any other registry that could arise and saw it fit to use it for their provisioning.
We have chosen this term to avoid this working group to only think of policy limited gTLD’s as the only usage for EPP and RDAP, which is not true. ccTLD’s, sTLD’s, RIR’s and ENUM registries also use EPP and/or RDAP.

The only change to the charter is that we previously had only one permitted extra work item of the dns-operators draft beyond EPP and RDAP protocol work, because we had a long milestone list that our AD wanted us to do first before we took on new work items. Now that our milestone list shortens, we have more time to take on this additional work, but as the charter proposal says, it should be limited to work related to the provisioning of "internet infrastructure identifier registries” that use EPP or RDAP, and the extra limitation is our AD needs to approve the topic as being in scope.

I hope this helps, and if you have a better suggestion for scoping or wording, we’ll be happy to hear.
We have put this proposed charter out here for formal discusion on the mailinglist and we will also have an item on our agenda in Montreal to discuss.

- --
Antoin Verschuren

Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
M: [phone]






Op 13 jun. 2018, om 23:39 heeft Andrew Newton <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:

> Thanks for the clarification, Roger.
> 
> The file formats seem like appropriate work to me. That said, the
> wording of the proposed charter seemed to indicate to me there was a
> broader motivation. If there is such, it be best if it were stated.
> 
> -andy
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Roger D Carney <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Good Morning,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I was definitely not thinking of two working groups.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The focus of the WG is EPP and RDAP extensions. The additional suggested
>> wording just adds on the ability to take on relevant (as determined by WG
>> and AD) work (e.g. Third Party DNS Operator…). My suggestion was not to
>> exclude, but to provide more focused wording. Maybe that wording is better,
>> change the entire sentence to state: “The working group may also take on
>> relevant (as determined by WG and AD) work, beyond the EPP and RDAP
>> protocols.”
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Andy, I think your original question that you posted earlier in the week is
>> what needs to be answered first, paraphrasing “what is the motivation for
>> this change”. Several others I think have basically asked the same question.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I don’t think I was the one asking for the charter change but here are my
>> thoughts on why I see a change being beneficial.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To me this started with the proposed Third Party DNS Operator document. At
>> one point the Charter was updated to add in this specific item (our current
>> Charter). Then over the past year some discussions were had on standardizing
>> the files that registries and registrars share (Unavailable Names,
>> Non-Standard/Premium Domain Fees, Invoicing) which lead into the discussion
>> of standardizing the storage of these files and other items (reporting comes
>> to mind). Today different registries have different web portals and ftp
>> sites to get this information from and different registrars request the
>> information in different formats. Many registries and registrars have agreed
>> that they would like to see a much better experience here. These topics do
>> not fit into the EPP/RDAP focus of our current charter but the people with
>> the most interest and expertise in these ideas are in this WG.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM
>> To: Roger D Carney <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Good Morning,
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> I agree with those saying this new wording seems a bit broad, what if
>> 
>>> "...related to the operation of Internet identifier registries..." was
>> 
>>> changed to "...related to the operation of Internet domain name
>> 
>>> registration systems..."?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> What about RIRs? Or would you suggest we split REGEXT into two working
>> groups?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -andy
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> regext mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext