[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validationrules

[gtheo]

Simply use the ITU E.164 format, scripting to that format is pretty 
easy. That being said, we have no idea how if this is true for all 
Registrars. For example I remember some ccTLD registrars who had to hire 
a programmer/developer for things like scripting.

It is that this thing is already in motion, it would have been a prefect 
subject for the DMPM Pilot (not sure what the status is on the DMPM 
recommendations), to get the facts, rather then guessing, as this could 
turn out to be a rather complex exercise all in all.

Best regards,

Theo Geurts








Jennifer Gore Standiford schreef op 2016-02-04 04:08 AM:
> I respectfully disagree Joyce. What tool or standard will be provided
> or used for all registrars to before verification of 'full address'.
> As for phone number format, standardization is currently required
> under the 2013 RAA, however 'validation' of phone number would also
> require a 3rd party tool to perform such action that could support all
> domestic and international phone number formats.
> 
> Jennifer
> 
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Joyce Lin <jlin at 007names.com> wrote:
> 
>> *
>> *
>> Hi Roger,
>> 
>> I believe a full verifiable address and valid phone number with
>> correct format are definitely required in thick whois.
>> 
>> Joyce
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> 
>>> FROM: Roger D Carney
>>> TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>>> SENT: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM
>>> SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact
>>> validationrules
>>> 
>>> Good Afternoon,
>>> 
>>> Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful.
>>> 
>>> I just want to confirm that I am reading this information
>>> correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal
>>> info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those
>>> required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning
>>> that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is
>>> that correct?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Roger
>>> 
>>> FROM: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] ON BEHALF OF
>>> Anderson, Marc
>>> SENT: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM
>>> TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
>>> SUBJECT: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact
>>> validation rules
>>> 
>>> Dear IRT Members,
>>> 
>>> At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars
>>> to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of
>>> thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the
>>> fields required and their validation rules.
>>> 
>>> Along with providing that information, I want to make sure
>>> everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a
>>> thin Registry and a thick Registry.  A thin domain registration
>>> does not have any contacts associated with it.  Currently, a
>>> Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net
>>> Registry.
>>> 
>>> As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start
>>> supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and
>>> delete contacts.    A thick domain registration MUST have a
>>> contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and
>>> Billing).  The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or
>>> contact types.  For example, if a Registrant were to register two
>>> domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar
>>> could create one contact and associate that with both domain
>>> registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each
>>> domain.  Either is fine, but I’m calling it out because it will
>>> have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill
>>> thick data for existing registrations.  There are no other
>>> differences between a thin and a thick registration.
>>> 
>>> I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required
>>> by all thick Registries.  Some (including Verisign) require it;
>>> some allow it as an optional field and some don’t allow it at
>>> all.  I don’t believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP
>>> working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT.
>>> 
>>> Attached please find a document containing the contact validation
>>> rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in
>>> assessing impacts.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> Marc Anderson
>>> 
>>> <image001.gif>
>>> 
>>> MARC ANDERSON
>>> Product Manager
>>> mcanderson at verisign.com
>>> 
>>> m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404
>>> 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190
>>> 
>>> VerisignInc.com [1]
>>> 
>>> <image003.gif>
>>> 
>>> -------------------------
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.verisigninc.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt