[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick

[Brent Lee]

Option 1 has too many uncertainty and many unforeseen issues may be encountered by all parties involved. Option 2 seems to be a more reasonable solutions.
 




On 06/04/2016, 12:34 AM, "Alexander Schwertner" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org on behalf of aschwertner at tucows.com> wrote:

>I am clearly in favor of option 2. It aligns with the scope of moving
>data from registrars to registry without touching on accuracy or quality
>as part of this exercise.
>
>Thanks
>Alex
>
>-- 
>Alexander Schwertner
>Vice President Products
>OpenSRS, a division of Tucows
>+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1217
>
>
>
>Am 2016-04-04 um 6:48 PM schrieb Fabien Betremieux:
>> Dear IRT members,
>> 
>> In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of
>> existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that
>> two alternative approaches are emerging:
>> 
>> Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data
>> before it can be accepted
>> 
>>   * The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on
>>     EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential
>>     changes to such checks.
>>   * The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would
>>     likely to last a considerable amount of time due to:
>>       o The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of
>>         data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries’ checks
>>       o The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data
>>         analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic
>>         implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the
>>         definition of the implementation plan
>> 
>> Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration
>> data during the transition
>> 
>>   * This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering
>>     that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy
>>     requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation
>>   * The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy
>>     recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk
>>     transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity
>>     to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing
>>     registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all
>>     registrations are thick.
>> 
>> Considering the outcome of the IRT’s meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech,
>> and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to
>> implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose
>> that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the
>> most applicable path forward.
>> 
>> We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move
>> forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April
>> COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we
>> are planning to organize the following week.
>> 
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
>> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
>Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt