Re: Merging RRP and Whois

  I guess I was too obscure.

Yes. I didn't realize your comments were about jurisdiction. I thought they
were about technology.

I was trying to say some players have technology/cost issues which
push them to considering other peoples protocols and work, to leverage
the advantage of commonalities. Like, this is not unusual.

  I'm not convinced of the utility or necessity, and quite certain
  of the converse, so lets leave the question to the hum-test, neh?

Sure. works for me. But don't expect this to go away in the n+1 fora
outside of the IETF, because the topic isn't going to die by wish fullfilment.
Outside of IETF, we have to make decisions what we require registry to do,
and how we require them to do it.

I'm in the role of a panel co-chair considering process in .AU - If a 
commercial entity comes to us, seeking to leverage their investment in RRP
I have to at least try and consider that on its merits. Taint from ICANN 
or jurisdiction isn't the issue: reducing public infrastructure overheads
and retaining stuff like the anti-spam volume checks, and the use of
whois or some other datarep to escrow data for re-allocation if the
tender switches elsewhere does matter.

So I'm commenting here because I'm going to have to try and sift this kind
of stuff when specifying requirements for parties looking to tender into
the registry provision business.  If one of them (and they have) says they
want to use RRP, I have to understand if thats as well as whois, or in place
of whois. And if they claim 'ietf compliance' Its good to know what that might
mean.

-cheers
	-George

--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: [email protected]    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au