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

[Joyce Lin]

Option 2  definitely will expedite the transition.  

I'm not sure if the process I'm thinking would be feasible and workable, especially on the registries' side.

1.  registrars upload existing  registrations data  to the registry and they will all go through because the registry does not check the existing data integrity,

2.  at certain point after the upload has been completed and the registry has all the registrations data,  new registrations data will be checked. And if the registration data does not comply with whatever would be set then, the registration will fail, and the RNH will be forced to modify the  data in order to successfully register a new domain.  Since the data has been updated at the registry's the previous registrations data of this RNH will be automatically updated.

Joyce
007names.com



----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Metalitz, Steven 
  To: 'Fabien Betremieux' ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
  Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick


  I support the recommendation to proceed with option 2. 

   

  Steve Metalitz 

   

   

   

  From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux
  Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:54 AM
  To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
  Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick

   

  Dear IRT members,

   

  This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone.

   

  Thank you for your attention

   

  Best Regards

  -- 

  Fabien Betremieux

  Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager

  Global Domains Division, ICANN

   

  From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux at icann.org>
  Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM
  To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
  Subject: Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick

   

  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

    a.. 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.
    b.. The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to:
      a.. The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries’ checks
      b.. 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

    a.. 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
    b.. 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160407/69922561/attachment.html>