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:a...@hxr.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 9:45 AM
To: Roger D Carney <rcar...@godaddy.com>
Cc: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [regext] Proposed Revision to our Charter



On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Roger D Carney 
<rcar...@godaddy.com<mailto:rcar...@godaddy.com>> 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
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Reply via email to