[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contactvalidation rules
theo geurts
gtheo at xs4all.nl
Sat Feb 13 20:56:53 UTC 2016
Hi Joyce,
You are absolutely correct when it comes to the Registrar requirements
(nailed it 100% correctly)
However I do not think we as IRT members are within scope to make these
requirements mandatory for this WHOIS migration, and if we are, we might
want to re-consider if we really want to go there. We are going to open
up a can of worms there the size of the empire state building in my
opinion.
We should follow the RFC and migrate what we got if we got it, even if
they are optional, after all these are our requirements.
If we need to go hunt down Registrar required data first, that is
optional in the RFC prior to the migration, then I predict we will not
bring this migration to a close within the next 6-10 years. We are
talking data that is older then ICANN and pre EPP, so we can expect some
missing fields here and there, but it has not been a problem ever, so
why make it a requirement ? If the migrated data has some missing fields
that you require for a transfer then simply contact the Registrar and
remind them of the requirements you mentioned in your email. We are all
used to that, or tell them they need to have a WHOIS server, so business
as usual in my opinion.
The sooner we get this done, the less delay we will face.
Have a good weekend, or what's left of it ;)
Theo Geurts
On 12-2-2016 18:16, Joyce Lin wrote:
> 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 <mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>
> *To:* Roger D Carney <mailto:rcarney at godaddy.com> ;
> gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
> <mailto: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>
> [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
> <mailto: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
>
> Verisign
>
> *Marc Anderson*
> Product Manager
> mcanderson at verisign.com <mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>
>
> m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404
> 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190
>
> VerisignInc.com <http://www.verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> Verisign™
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160213/b10c3e52/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 131 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160213/b10c3e52/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160213/b10c3e52/attachment-0003.gif>
More information about the Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
mailing list