[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] CL&D - Your Input on Staff Proposals - Due Wed. 11 May

[Anderson, Marc]

Fabien,

I'm responding to your request for input on proposal #2 below: "optional display of the Registrar Registration Expiration Date, with mitigation measures similar to that of the AWIP policy if displayed".

My assumption is that AWIP mitigation measures you are referring to are the requirement to add a link after the "Domain Status" field to an ICANN hosted page providing an explanation of the various status codes as well as additional information to the footer of a WhoIs query response.  For example:

Domain Status: ok https://icann.org/epp#ok

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

I am NOT a fan of the AWIP requirement to add a link at the end of the Domain Status value.  The Domain Status in my example isn't "ok https://icann.org/epp#ok"; it's just "ok".  I find the additional data in the response confusing and unnecessary.  I am not supportive of doing something similar for the expiration date.

Adding something to the footer of the WhoIs response is less troublesome to me.  A line providing users with a URL to get more information about expirations dates would not be difficult, but I would be interested in knowing what information would be provided at that URL.  Pending that I wouldn't be opposed to that approach for Registries that choose to implement an optional Registrar Registration Expiration Date field in their RDDS output.

Thank you,
Marc


From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 7:46 AM
To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] CL&D - Your Input on Staff Proposals - Due Wed. 11 May

Dear IRT members,

As discussed during our meeting, we would like to request you provide your input regarding Staff's question and proposals to address the public comments received on our initial implementation plan (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en).

A a reminder, these question and proposals are the following:

Question:

  *   Is the issue created by referencing the 2013 RAA in a Consensus Policy applicable to registries a matter of policy or implementation ?
Proposals:

  1.  Referral of the Registry vs. Registrar Expiration Date confusion for consideration by the RDS PDP Working Group
  2.  Optional display of the Registrar Registration Expiration Date, with mitigation measures similar to that of the AWIP policy if displayed
  3.  Proposed Bundling of T&T and CL&D implementation (more details on slide 4 of our presentation this week, available at: https://community.icann.org/display/TWCPI/IRT+Meetings)
Please provide your input in response to this email by Wed. 11 May COB in your time zone.

Please also note that we hope to focus our next IRT meeting (Tue. 10 May) on the implementation of the transition from thin to thick.

Best Regards
--
Fabien Betremieux
Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager
Global Domains Division, ICANN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160512/1cb007f7/attachment.html>