[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4

Thu Sep 29 14:51:02 UTC 2016

Marc,

Is there a possibility that this would be a three step process?

1.       Create the contacts

2.       Attach the contacts to the domain.

3.       Depending on if the registrar is storing the contactIDs associated with the domain, the registrar would need the list of contactIDs created by the registry in order to store the contactIDs in the registrar’s database, in case the contacts are updated at the registrar.  Granted some registrars may not store those contactIDs because they may only perform registrations through the web portal.

Thanks,
Jody Kolker

From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Pelling
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:46 AM
To: Anderson, Marc
Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4

Hi Marc,

On a plus point we have already had registrars interested in the alternative procedure, on posting to the RrSG, I had 2 registrars reply within minutes.  So what we should do then is come up with the required fields , what I do not understand and correct me if I am wrong, you already have the AUTH info as otherwise you would not be able to ACK a transfer request.

Certainly when logging into the verisign namestore manager, I can see the EPP Code (transfer secret / auth0info) in front of me.

Kind regards,

Chris

________________________________
From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>>
To: "chris" <chris at netearth.net<mailto:chris at netearth.net>>, "theo geurts" <gtheo at xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>>
Cc: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang at icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2016 14:39:29
Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4

Hey Chris,

Earlier the IRT discussed the possibility of using the Registrar data escrow files to facilitate the backfill of data.  I don’t remember the specifics (maybe someone else can help with the details), but this option was discarded because the escrow files don’t contain all the required fields to create a contact.  I think maybe “auth info” was one of the missing pieces of information.

Considering a 2 step process of creating the contacts and then associating those contacts with the relevant domain names it seemed that repurposing the escrow files would create more work for Registrars than it would save.

Thank you,
Marc

From: Chris Pelling [mailto:chris at netearth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:00 PM
To: theo geurts
Cc: Dennis Chang; Anderson, Marc; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4

Hi Theo,

Yes this was what I brought up, essentially I suggested that the data escrow that we provide to IM could be used for the population of this date as it covers everything needed.  I am not suggesting we give ICANN or Verisign permission to gain this from IM, but, we as registrars if we elect too as an option provide a version to Verisign with only com/net in it.

Let me give a scenario why we need a alternative :

Small registrar may not have the technical ability in house to implement batch pool EPP services (they simply may not use it) and thus in this case, they do have to provide IM with the data escrow - they could simply have one of their staff open the csv file in excel, filter it for the TLDs required, and then save it.

The file is standardised (well that's a moot point as neither ICANN stand up to their RDE spec of 2007, and IM point us back to the document - but thats a whole other story with ICANN Compliance) so from Verisigns point of view - it should be a simple import.

Lets also add to the above, you can guarantee that a lot of registrars may leave this to the last minute, so, providing a one of file and allowing Verisign to import it is way simpler.

Lastly, if some large registrars do wait until the last minute to start the EPP upload, and Verisign runs out of resources and cannot cope (not saying that they will but you have to think of the worst case scenario) who is to blame on the expected end date when the report is created showing X, Y and Z registrars have not completed their uploads and it is shown its down to resources at Verisign ?

Kind regards,

Chris

________________________________
From: "theo geurts" <gtheo at xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>>
To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang at icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September, 2016 18:13:51
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4

Hi Dennis,
Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things.

We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list.
Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one.

But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether.

I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason.

Theo

On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote:
Theo,

I’ll be sure to add to the agenda.
For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well.

Thanks
Dennis Chang

From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com><mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM
To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org><mailto:dennis.chang at icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org> <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org><mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Subject: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4

Dennis,

Thank you for sending out this updated version.  In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items.

•         Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data.  I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section.  Could I have some time during the meeting to present?

•         At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language.  I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states:

The “Billing” contact is optional.  Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported.  If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22).

I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general.  My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it.

•         Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data?  It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations.

Thank you,
Marc Anderson

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 Dennis Chang
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM
To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4

Dear Thick Whois IRT,

Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week.  A clean and redlined provided for your further review.

Three key updates are

1)       Adapted the alternate definition of Thick

2)       Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition

3)       Removed sections referring to RDAP

Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week.

Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on.

—
Kind Regards,
Dennis S. Chang
GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
+1 213 293 7889
Skype: dennisSchang
www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dqLP1wJqBvDSYLKrSEaAkCi_Kv0Mk5D_d32n29DHCN8&m=_f3H3Pcml_qJDJloAyJpIVETJx00tS7PzbGeSwpiK_4&s=-jPEE6wRYHqfFNrPmqa8xGUQ6q7I9vMvdXKFVyFX_BE&e=>   "One World, One Internet"

_______________________________________________

Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list

Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20160929/63257acd/attachment-0001.html>