[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Additional suggestions.

[Joyce Lin]

I do not  think the  escrow files would work because you are asking  the registries to unwrap (or whatever tool) the file that you upload to the escrow provider.   They definitely are not going to do that extra work and more importantly, they may not fit into their db seamlessly.

Joyce



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Roger D Carney 
  To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 11:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Additional suggestions.


  Good Morning,

   

  Theo are you suggesting using both EPP and the escrow files together, I am not clear on what/how these would be used together?

   

  I think just starting with the escrow comes with many issues as well.

   

  I think this would cause some issues on how we would get Contact IDs and Auth Info data transmitted?

   

  Does the escrow process support shared contacts?

   

  The escrow files may contain proxy/privacy contacts which I am sure most Registrars would not want to expose.

   

  Additionally, Verisign and Registrars are going to need to figure out error handling when files are used, is Verisign going to send back a file containing success/failure/reason for each domain/contact? How will re-transmission of error records be handled?

   

   

  Thanks

  Roger

   

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo
  Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 5:29 AM
  To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
  Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Additional suggestions.

   

  Hello team,

   

  During the calls, we mentioned that we should use EPP as Registrars.

   

  To avoid some scripting issues is it perhaps an idea that Registrars also can push the RDE Deposit format in addition to EPP?

  https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf

   

  Every registrar has to make these deposits and the format is the same for everyone. Not taking into account Registrars who do not use Iron Mountain for Escrow, but that is most likely a very low number.

   

   

  It might be worth exploring if we cannot use the escrowed data to begin with. If we could use that data then we are talking just one entity migrating. The whole window of 12 months would not be required and as such we would speed up the process and not risk delays when Registrars start to migrate as late as possible for whatever reason.

   

  From a technical point of view, it makes a lot more sense since there is already 1 place where all the data is stored.

   

  Legal wise there are most likely a whole set of issues that we might not be able to tackle. During Marrakech, the idea was rejected during the Registrar meeting. Main reason we cannot use the escrow data as the contract does not permit it. And Iron Mountain did only have the real data and not the privacy protected data.

   

  The latter issue seems to be resolving itself as Iron Mountain is now requesting that data, I suspect on behalf of ICANN compliance.

  We might want to check with Compliance to see what is up there.

   

  Best regards,

   

  Theo Geurts

   

  _______________________________________________

  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/20160606/3afa119d/attachment-0001.html>