[Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA

James M. Bladel jbladel at godaddy.com
Thu Feb 7 18:36:54 UTC 2019


Folks –

I appreciate that this sounds easy on the outside, but from a Registrar perspective we can only take a “best guess” approach here.  For example, we could detect contact roles like “Domain” or “Administrator”, but beyond a few obvious field values, it’s going to be hit or miss.

Also note that the Registered Name Holder is the entity that executes the Registration Agreement, so we also need to clear this with our legal folks as to whether or not these changes rise to the level of a Re-assignement of that contract, and how that should be handled.

Bottom line - It’s critical that whatever policy recommendations we make recognize these realities and provide Registrars some flexibility to make intelligence adaptations that suit their customers.

Thanks—

J.

-------------
James Bladel
GoDaddy


From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 12:32
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Cc: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA

Thanks Marika,

As long as we can be sure that "Registered Name Holder contact information" is interpreted as requiring both the phine number and e-mail, I am fine with that.

Note that the list of RDS fields which currently omits Admin contacts needs to be suitably annotated since the date at which we implement the new policy could come before all registrations are known to be ok.

Alan


--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On February 7, 2019 1:07:35 PM EST, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
Ayden, Alan, all,

Having followed this thread, could this be resolved by just adding the words in bold to the language suggested by Ayden:

Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information.

Best regards,

Caitlin, Berry and Marika

From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 10:43
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>, "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: FW: Response from ICANN Compliance re. registrations under the 2009 RAA

Recognizing that in the case of some existing registrations, there may be an Administrative Contact but no or incomplete Registered Name Holder contact information, the EPDP team recommends that prior to eliminating Administrative Contact fields, all Registrars must ensure that each registration contains contact information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190207/9db25d6b/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list