RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: IRTP PDP A Final Report

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On pg 6 and pg 9 the report says IRIS was reviewed and discussed but did not
have broad agreement of the Working Group as a solution to Issue #1.  Is
that accurate?  I do not see any basis for this conclusion within the
report.  Pg. 26 lists positive commentary only:

Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)
§       The Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) has been developed
by the IETF Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) working group
with the objective to replace Whois. IRIS offers the opportunity to set some
enforceable standards around who has access to specific registrant data
fields and a way to control such access.
§       Not taking into account or providing any opinion on whether IRIS
should or should not be considered as a replacement for Whois, the Working
Group discussed whether it would be an option to consider IRIS as a secure
means of communication between registrars. In this circumstance, the only
data that would be provided and shared between registrars would be
registrant e-mail data. The Authinfo code could be used as a means of
authentication to access IRIS.
§       As with EPP, the costs and time of implementation would need to be
assessed in order to determine whether this would be a viable option.
§       IRIS was also raised as a possible solution for the secure
transmission of data between registrars and/or registries in one of the
comments submitted during the public comment period on the Initial Report
(see section 6.4 for more details).
 
Thoughtful public comments, IETF and SSAC have all been positive about IRIS.
http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac027.pdf 
http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac033.pdf
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/crocker-to-whois-study-group-19may08.pd
f

Could we support it as a potential solution, and propose next steps to study
its feasibility?

For Issue #2, could we recommend potential next steps, or at least document
any existing and proposed "market solutions"?


Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
www.rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:41 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] RE: IRTP PDP A Final Report


Thank you to the WG members who attended today's call.  We're almost done
with our work, and hope to have the Final Report ready for the GNSO Council
when it meets at ICANN Mexico City.  I would ask all WG participants to
review the current text (available at
https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_pdp_wg_pdp_
jun08) and offer any suggested edits to this list.  Please pay particular
attention to Sections 6.4 and 7.  

We will have another call on Tuesday (2/24) to review and hopefully endorse
the final text.  We really need as many WG participants on the
2/24 call as possible.  Without a quorum, we'll have to delay submitting the
report to the GNSO Council.  We've already completed most all of the work,
so let's get this finished.  

If you know you won't be able to attend Tuesday's call, please let Glen,
Marika or I know.  Also, if you can't be on the call but are comfortable
with the report as is, please let us know.  This will enable us to more
accurately gauge support for the text and communicate accordingly to the
Council.

Regards, P

Paul Diaz
Network Solutions, LLC
IRTP PDP A WG chairman