Re: [weirds] Fwd: rechartering

Roger D Carney <> Tue, 28 July 2015 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440211A92BD; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dq7Cw62ij2B2; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 510C61A9233; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:18:07 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0225.018; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:18:07 +0000
From: Roger D Carney <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [weirds] Fwd: rechartering
Thread-Index: AQHQyTggiuhj3ZWY50mFHes3mY2dzZ3w6jZw
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:18:07 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN1PR02MB119; 5:nc+ltZCSAzrkY9Ouq7yXlKPGsE8Y4FEjU515syVcBu3s/7DosRtPpqawSnN81ukxtF1cYxobtOLIC+Dk/gMDiH6vVy62YA7H5XFVcQi8TK/XI/nDP6EqB2V9tL79C2sQi4we91M8dzfeU2xCxQIxUA==; 24:PE+GcaKx1rOmr08vO9SpAb2AdMs4RO4T33MrEmKvdl6mvqsgazUuLEQGRYD+MaBRIr+hCz8CloXrECaSqSCeTK9Tqh1+K1jSej6OAknIehY=; 20:mkre4HZN9vBOgWxuomupsEg/jpPrkImvI/Ghm3g03mmqCS4F5TxtfX1iBn5HVSeKcK6NwrUOsTf0f5Ywxn6x5g==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR02MB119;
bn1pr02mb119: X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RulesExecuted
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(108003899814671);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(3002001); SRVR:BN1PR02MB119; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN1PR02MB119;
x-forefront-prvs: 06515DA04B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(377454003)(22974007)(122556002)(76576001)(92566002)(2501003)(46102003)(66066001)(5001770100001)(2950100001)(16236675004)(77156002)(40100003)(5001960100002)(87936001)(107886002)(450100001)(86362001)(5002640100001)(19580395003)(5003600100002)(19580405001)(189998001)(19625215002)(2656002)(5001920100001)(62966003)(54356999)(106116001)(19300405004)(74316001)(76176999)(102836002)(2900100001)(33656002)(15975445007)(99286002)(50986999)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR02MB119;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN1PR02MB1191FC0454BC58DD43EEBCEB18D0BN1PR02MB119namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Jul 2015 14:18:07.5239 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: d5f1622b-14a3-45a6-b069-003f8dc4851f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR02MB119
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [weirds] Fwd: rechartering
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:18:19 -0000

Good Morning,

This sounds like a good idea, Andy do you have any proposed wording for a combined charter?


From: weirds [] On Behalf Of Andrew Newton
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 8:20 AM
Subject: [weirds] Fwd: rechartering

Since there has been no negative feedback, I'm cross-posting this to WEIRDS to see what people over there think.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Newton <<>>
Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 8:21 PM
Subject: rechartering


I'd like to offer another idea for the rechartering of this working group. Instead of focusing exclusively on EPP extensions, would it be better if we rechartered to focus on protocol issues of Internet registries... more specifically EPP and RDAP.

Given that the constituencies for both have considerable overlap, and there is already at least one draft covering the mapping between EPP and RDAP and that there will likely be future drafts where the inputs of EPP and the outputs of RDAP are correlated, this seems like an easier way forward.

I spoke privately with Scott, Barry, and Pete (the AD behind the chartering of both EPPEXT and WEIRDS) just to see if I wasn't barking madd, and they each thought it makes sense.

What are your thoughts and comments about such an approach?