ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Update from GNSO Council Meeting

  • To: "'Marika Konings'" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx'" <gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Update from GNSO Council Meeting
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:30:38 -0700

This is important to figure out a way to exchange registrant contact email
between registrars, as requested by the GNSO Council when it chartered this
Working Group.  Alternatively the WG and/or Council could consider making
registrant contact info unauthoritative, so only the more public admin
contact info is authoritative.  Seems to me that ought to have been its
purpose per the original IRTP and previous policy and practice, but curious
to hear others' views about historical policy.  

Either way, or even to defend the status quo, it would be useful to know
what would be the true costs and benefits to registrars and registries, and
also the costs and benefits to registrants and users, from implementing
IRIS.  The IETF spec appears ripe for implementation, and SSAC has called
for analysyis of WHOIS alternatives including IRIS.  So there is strong
justification for assessing what the costs would be to get this analysis.  

>From Chuck's comments on our last Council call, echoed by other Councilors,
he is ready to look at alternative implementations of WHOIS, including IRIS.
This WG is in good position to comment in support, since we have been unable
to handle this registrant email issue any other way so far.  

Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:50 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Update from GNSO Council Meeting

Dear All,

The IRTP Part A motion was briefly discussed at the last GNSO Council
meeting (26 March 2009), but it was decided to defer any vote on the motion
to the next meeting (16 April 2009) in order to allow Council members to
review the motion and final report in further detail. It was agreed that any
questions that would arise in the meantime would be shared with the WG for
discussion and feedback. One question was raised on the call by Chuck Gomes,
who has kindly put it in writing, for review by the WG regarding the
recommendation to request an assessment of IRIS:

'1) It will be a very significant and costly effort for registries and
registrars to implement IRIS; 2) would it even make sense to do that just
for the exchange of registrant contact info; 3) if not, then does it even
make sense to do the cost estimates?  Of course, if the answer to 2) is yes,
then maybe we should get cost estimates now.  If getting the cost estimates
isn't going to change anything in the near term, then why get them because
they may be different in the future.'

Please feel free to share your views on the mailing list.

REMINDER: please provide your input on the next IRTP PDP (see previous email
attached). In order to move this forward, it will be helpful to get a
request for an issues report to the Council in time for its next meeting (9
April - one week before the next Council meeting).

Best regards,


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy