[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contactvalidation rules

Fri Feb 12 17:16:44 UTC 2016

If the address, phone are not required, then ICANN's whois accuracy compliance programs need to be modified,

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#whois-accuracy
3.3 Public Access to Data on Registered Names. During the Term of this Agreement:

3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and, with respect to any ?gTLD? operating a "thin" registry, a port 43 Whois service (each accessible via both IPv4 and IPv6) providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by Registrar in any ?gTLD?. Until otherwise specified by a ?Consensus? Policy, such data shall consist of the following elements as contained in Registrar's database:

3.3.1.1 The name of the Registered Name;

3.3.1.2 The names of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name;

3.3.1.3 The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's website);

3.3.1.4 The original creation date of the registration;

3.3.1.5 The expiration date of the registration;

3.3.1.6 The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder;

3.3.1.7 The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the Registered Name; and

3.3.1.8 The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the Registered Name.

Am I misunderstanding the issue?

Joyce

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anderson, Marc 
  To: Roger D Carney ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
  Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contactvalidation rules

  Hey Roger,

  You raised a very good point on the required fields.  You missed out on a fairly lively discussion on this topic during today's IRT meeting.

  You are correct in that this document reflects what is listed in RFC 5733 which defines EPP for contacts.  Per that RFC the address and phone fields are not required so it would be possible for Registrars to create contacts without passing that data to the Registry.

  Krista put this much more eloquently then I will be able to here, but this does not reflect or impact what Registrars are required to collect from Registrants or any of their complete and accurate requirements.  It is simply the field validation rules that I am proposing we implement.

  I think it's good that Fabien added this to the agenda for today's meeting.  Clearly from the call there are differing opinions on if these fields (specifically Address 1 and email) should be required by the Registry.  I think this is exactly the type of item the IRT should be discussing and providing advice to ICANN staff on.

  If the consensus of the IRT is that Registries should make those fields mandatory then that is the advice we should provide to ICANN staff, who are ultimately responsible for drafting the consensus policy language.  My request is that the consensus policy language makes it clear one way or another.  For example, should it be left to Registry policy (as the RFC seems to suggest), should those fields be optional, or should those fields be mandatory.

  Thank you,

  Marc

  From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney
  Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM
  To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
  Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules

  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

        Marc Anderson
        Product Manager
        mcanderson at verisign.com

        m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404
        12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190

        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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160212/31cb0780/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 131 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160212/31cb0780/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160212/31cb0780/image002-0001.gif>