Subject: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:11:26 -0500

Attached is the final charter for the new working group.  It has all 
changes discussed to date and the milestones as agreed on the list.

There is one change I included that got very little discussion on the 
list and I wanted to call it out so folks could consider if they want to 
keep it or remove it.  This is the reason for a “last call” on the 
charter before committing it to the IESG.

Marc Blanchet proposed the text I included in this message:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/-Ef1Pdi-9uFIZC7yTAYDeIxCZV0

There was no response to this message on the list.

Marc first made the suggestion here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/ouE4fgfXAUWJG96XvgqjDR9OfoQ

As Chair I had suggested we not include the change but Jacques Latour 
asked to have the change included.  Here is the final message in this 
short thread:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/jCF6tfwIFVGi6E8lXFFKU0TVW3Q

Would working group members please indicate their support or objection 
for this change by Friday, 29 January 2017.  It’s a two sentence 
change to the charter if folks want to remove it.

Jim

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:22:18 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EppExt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James Galvin
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 4:11 PM
> To: eppext
> Subject: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter
> 

I'd like to express support for this addition.

Scott

---

From: Marc Groeneweg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:30:37 +0000

+1 for me

-----Original Message-----
From: EppExt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hollenbeck, Scott
Sent: maandag 25 januari 2016 15:22
To: James Galvin; eppext
Subject: Re: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter

> list and I wanted to call it out so folks could consider if they want 
> to keep it or remove it.  This is the reason for a “last call” on the 

Scott
_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext

---

From: Rik Ribbers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:00:09 +0000

I have no objection to adding the wording from Marc Blanchet to the charter.

However as time has passed a new draft has surfaced(draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date)  Should we add this to the milestone list or not?

I prefer not to add them and do a call for adoption when we finally have the new charter in place (as we can do this based on our new charter).

One side question:

Will we alias the mailinglists (eppext, provreg weirds) into a new one as discussed here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/Ja8eCegrdMAFd-DwZHkHWl0t6AI

Shouldn’t this be in the charter somewhere or is this just something operational when the new charter is approved? Again I hope for the last as I do not want to delay the rechartering process.

Gr,
Rik

On 22 Jan 2016, at 22:11, James Galvin <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Attached is the final charter for the new working group.  It has all changes discussed to date and the milestones as agreed on the list.

There is one change I included that got very little discussion on the list and I wanted to call it out so folks could consider if they want to keep it or remove it.  This is the reason for a “last call” on the charter before committing it to the IESG.

As Chair I had suggested we not include the change but Jacques Latour asked to have the change included.  Here is the final message in this short thread:

Would working group members please indicate their support or objection for this change by Friday, 29 January 2017.  It’s a two sentence change to the charter if folks want to remove it.

Jim
<charter.txt>_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext

---

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:55:27 -0500

On 26 Jan 2016, at 3:00, Rik Ribbers wrote:

> However as time has passed a new draft has 
> surfaced(draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date)  Should 
> we add this to the milestone list or not?
>
> I prefer not to add them and do a call for adoption when we finally 
> have the new charter in place (as we can do this based on our new 
> charter).

Thanks for your question!

We decided not to add anything that has not already been discussed for 
just this reason.  The milestones also set the priority for our tasks.

We can always change this but I think it’s more prudent to get a 
baseline established and then change as we go when needed.

Of course, if folks prefer a different path please do speak up.

> One side question:
>
> Will we alias the mailinglists (eppext, provreg weirds) into a new one 
> as discussed here: 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/Ja8eCegrdMAFd-DwZHkHWl0t6AI
>
> Shouldn’t this be in the charter somewhere or is this just something 
> operational when the new charter is approved? Again I hope for the 
> last as I do not want to delay the rechartering process.

I don’t know about provreg but for eppext and weirds it is an 
operational issue and it will just happen.  I haven’t asked about the 
details but I presume that subscribers from both will be added to the 
new list.  We’ll get the specifics and let folks know.

Jim

---

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:08:43 -0500

Thanks to those who have indicated their support for the charter.

I haven’t seen any objections.  We will wait until Friday before 
submitting this officially.  I just wanted to remind folks to comment 
before then.

Thanks,

Jim

On 22 Jan 2016, at 16:11, James Galvin wrote:

> to keep it or remove it.  This is the reason for a “last call” on 
> the charter before committing it to the IESG.
>
>

---

From: Gustavo Lozano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:46:44 +0000

Jim, all,

I think that we should add
draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date to the milestones in
March 2016.

In the case of gTLDs, the draft thick Whois policy requires registries to
show the reseller and registrar expiration date in the RDDS (e.g. Whois,
RDAP) output. The drafts: draft-zhou-eppext-reseller* and
draft-lozano-ietf-eppext-registrar-expiration-date, provide a mechanism to
transmit the reseller and registrar expiration date in the
registry-registrar channel, therefore I think that they should go
together. RDAP supports publishing the information (reseller and registrar
expiration date), and registries/registrars should benefit if there is a
mechanism agreed by the community to transmit the information in EPP.

There is another draft (draft-lozano-rdap-nameservers-sharing-name) that I
would like to add the milestones, as this draft is trying to solve an
issue discovered when drafting the RDAP profile, it would be beneficial
for the implementation plan of the draft thick whois policy / RDAP profile
to have it in the October 2016 set.

Regards,
Gustavo

On 1/26/16, 06:55, "EppExt on behalf of James Galvin"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>We can always change this but I think it¹s more prudent to get a
>> Shouldn¹t this be in the charter somewhere or is this just something
>I don¹t know about provreg but for eppext and weirds it is an
>operational issue and it will just happen.  I haven¹t asked about the
>new list.  We¹ll get the specifics and let folks know.
>
>Jim
>

---

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:00:04 -0500

> mechanism agreed by the community to transmit the information in EPP.

We need to see support from the working group to do this.  If folks 
support this would they please respond on the list, ideally today?

As Chair, I more concerned with getting the initial revised charter done 
today than making this change.  Personally, this change makes sense to 
me but since we can update milestones much more easily, as Chair, I’d 
rather get the charter done and then press to get the milestones updated 
later.

Unless of course there’s a storm of support for adding this milestone 
now, then we’ll get it in before we submit the charter today.

> to have it in the October 2016 set.

Similarly, since the date for this milestone is pretty far out, I’d 
rather wait on this and work to add it after the charter is done.

Of course, other opinions and preferences from the working group are 
always welcome.

Jim

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 10:04:44 -0500

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:00 AM, James Galvin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> today than making this change.  Personally, this change makes sense to me
> but since we can update milestones much more easily, as Chair, I’d rather
> get the charter done and then press to get the milestones updated later.

I think this makes sense.

-andy

---

From: Roger D Carney <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 16:17:45 +0000

I agree let's get this completed and then add additional milestones as we progress.

I support this final charter for the new working group.

Thanks
Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: EppExt [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew Newton
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:05 AM
To: James Galvin
Cc: eppext; Gustavo Lozano
Subject: Re: [eppext] WG Last Call - final charter

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:00 AM, James Galvin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> As Chair, I more concerned with getting the initial revised charter 
> done today than making this change.  Personally, this change makes 
> sense to me but since we can update milestones much more easily, as 
> Chair, I’d rather get the charter done and then press to get the milestones updated later.

-andy

---

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:38:31 -0500

So far those that have commented have all supported the charter as 
attached.

Gustavo made a suggestion for an additional milestone but that has not 
received much support.  The proposal in this case is to focus on getting 
the charter updated and then we can update the milestones later if that 
is appropriate.  It is also worth mentioned that there is some 
discussion about Gustavo’s document progressing on ICANN’s gtld-tech 
list and I don’t think we should interrupt that just yet.

We did say that today would be the last day for comments.  I didn’t 
indicate a time so we’ll go with close of business everywhere.  Barry 
is already aware of this and I’ll send him an “official” note 
tomorrow morning that the charter is ready to go.

The question of what will happen to the mailing lists has been asked by 
a few people.  When we formally submit the charter and it is approved 
then Barry will make the appropriate requests for the following to 
happen.

1. The regext list will be created.
2. Subscribers of all of “provreg”, “weirds”, and “eppext” 
will be subscribed to regext.
3. The lists “provreg”, “weirds”, and “eppext” will be 
aliased to point to “regext”.

All of this should just happen and we should all just take note when it 
does and then start using the appropriate alias for sending messages to 
the list.

If there are any other questions or concerns please do speak up.

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 09:13:51 -0500

There have been no additional comments regarding the charter since my 
message below yesterday.  So, Antoin and I declaring working group 
consensus for this document and submitting this to Barry for IESG 
review.

Thanks to everyone who commented.

Jim

On 29 Jan 2016, at 15:38, James Galvin wrote:

> received much support.  The proposal in this case is to focus on 
> getting the charter updated and then we can update the milestones 
> later if that is appropriate.  It is also worth mentioned that there 
> is some discussion about Gustavo’s document progressing on ICANN’s 
> gtld-tech list and I don’t think we should interrupt that just yet.
>
> indicate a time so we’ll go with close of business everywhere.  
> Barry is already aware of this and I’ll send him an “official” 
> note tomorrow morning that the charter is ready to go.
>
> The question of what will happen to the mailing lists has been asked 
> by a few people.  When we formally submit the charter and it is 
> approved then Barry will make the appropriate requests for the 
> following to happen.
>
> All of this should just happen and we should all just take note when 
> it does and then start using the appropriate alias for sending 
> messages to the list.
>
>> Would working group members please indicate their support or 
>> objection for this change by Friday, 29 January 2017.  It’s a two 
>> sentence change to the charter if folks want to remove it.
>>
>> Jim