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

[gtheo]

Hello all,

A few days ago I went for option 2 with the idea that option 2 will 
speed up the process significantly, I am however switching to option 1 
as I have given option 2 some more thought.

Option 2 does speed up the process it is also very likely that it will 
cause issues after the migration. How big those issues are going to be, 
I have no idea. This all boils down to the question I raised on one of 
earlier calls, how big is this issue of missing data? And I still think 
we should actually put a number on that prior to moving forward.

Anyways, let's assume we go for option 2 and in this scenario, there are 
huge chunks of data missing. The current Registrar won't have many 
issues as they won't have issues now, right until the moment when a 
domain name is being transferred.

Then the gaining Registrar has an issue as it is possible the gaining 
Registrar will end up with domain names with missing data, be it either 
through the regular transfer process or through a Registry bulk 
transfer.

Thus, the gaining Registrar is inheriting the issues from the losing 
Registrar ie you as a gaining Registrar will have to correct the 
problems from the losing Registrar.

Correcting those issues might be rather expensive and keep in mind that 
the IRTP C PDP is already live by then and will most likely make data 
correction even more complex.

Sounds to me the next call even got more interesting than it already was 
;)

In addition to this, I think we also need to discuss Multibyte 
characters in contact handles. Beside the RFC is there any more 
documentation about this, how this is being handled?

Best regards,

Theo





Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-04-07 01:53 PM:
> 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
> 
> 	* 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:
> 
> 	* The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of
> data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries' checks
> 	* 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