Subject: Re: [eppext] revised draft charter - v2

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:46:02 +0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Roger D Carney
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 7:56 PM
> To: eppext
> Subject: Re: [eppext] revised draft charter - v2
> 
> Thanks Berry, makes sense and sounds great, I like Andy's suggest to
include
> WEIRDS as well as Rik's to include provreg (I think many of us are on
multiples
> of these but it would catch all those that are not).
> 
> Jim, I would like to suggest including Reseller, Bundling, and Fees to the
> milestones, in that order sounds good too.  I assume the Key Relay will be
> finished under the "old/current" WG/Charter.

+1
And when shall we finalize the milestone and schedule?

Regards,
Linlin

---

From: Peter Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:16:27 +0200

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:16:34PM +0000, Edward Lewis wrote:

> I think having a registry-industry focused extensions WG is a good idea.

[...]

> Two questions that come to mind are: Would creating a
> registry-as-a-specific-function WG be something new to the IETF?  (I.e.,
> precedent-setting?)  And would this be better placed in O&M?

The operations part of the protocols might benefit from an assembly
point that combines protocol development and ops background from
both rtegistries, registrars, and vendors.  Whether a shift O{&M}
makes any difference - I do not know, especially given recent developments
w.r.t. out-of-area ADs.

> I'll add - I don't see registries continually evolving over time, past a
> point of maturity.  So a WG would have a limited lifetime, not an
> on-going, ever-expanding function.

We've thought that about the DNS a couple of times. Now look.

That said, the part that makes me nervous is the very prominent position
of ICANN within the charter text.  I understand that that is a motivating
factor, but I'd really wish the IETF was a bit more careful to not become
the 'standards delivery wing' of said organization.  The existence of a
domain name world outside ICANN should be explicitly acknowledged.

The second issue is related to scope.  The past has shown failed attempts
to fire up IETF WGs for developing something constrained by a single
stakeholder and their timeline. I consider this a feature rather than a bug.

In summary, I do not see a real benefit in joining the two groups
into one. If it's meeting logistics, that can be dealt with differently.
The protocols are significantly distinct that two lists shouldn't
really hurt. A 'melting pot' of all things registry protocol stuff is
what should not happen.

-Peter

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:00:28 +0000

>domain name world outside ICANN should be explicitly acknowledged.

ICANN's interest, if you will, in RDAP would be a motivation for people to
participate but "ICANN" shouldn't be the reason for the IETF to charter a
group.  That EPP is used across different categories of registries and
RDAP is well established in RIRs, the topic demonstrates broader appeal
than simply something ICANN is expected to move towards.