<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:342169477;
mso-list-template-ids:515281544;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2029017482;
mso-list-template-ids:-1145260848;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As I made the initial proposal for registries to implement validation based on the EPP standards in RFC5733 I’m sure it will be no surprise that I favor option
1. I think RFC5733 is a well understood and defined standard that represents a nice middle ground as far as validation goes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I recognize that there is an argument to be made for both less validation as suggested in option 2 or more validation as was expressed by some IRT members when
the initial proposal was first discussed (for example there was concern that the address 1 field was not required).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If we do take the option 2 approach I request that we be clear on what is meant by “registries do not impose any checks on registration data…” That’s fairly
nebulous. I assume we would still have all the same fields but for example under phone extension, currently only numeric values are accepted. Would we remove this restriction and allow ASCII characters as well…. UTF8? I would think we would still need to
make the Contact ID and Auth Info fields required. I would also want to keep the Max field lengths in place for the various fields as that has sizing implications on our systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I think it’s possible to sync the transition of new and existing registrations with either option but I think either way it will take longer for existing registrations.
I’m not opposed to syncing them up but I don’t think it makes sense to hold up one effort for the other.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I agree with Roger’s statement about having a discussion on what a bulk transfer is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thank you,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Marc<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Fabien Betremieux<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 04, 2016 6:48 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Dear IRT members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches
are emerging:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to:<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<ul type="disc">
<ul type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries’ checks<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of the
implementation plan<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2">
<span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations,</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> it reduces the implementation to
a sizable bulk transfer of data, and</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all
registrations are thick.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Considering the outcome of the IRT’s meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition
from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest,
for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Thank you in advance for your consideration<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Best Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>