[Gnso-epdp-team] Issues with the report
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Feb 13 00:39:38 UTC 2019
There are several issues with the report that are either incorrect,
or I do not know how the decisions were made (and several others also
do not know).
- Rec #8 implies (but does not clearly say) that offering Tech
Contacts is an option for registrars. In the interim report, we
raised the question of whether "optional" for the Tech fields meant
optional for the registrant, or optional for the registrar. I cannot
recall ever discussing this when we went over the comments, but
somehow it is now optional for registrars, requiring registrants to
shop around for a registrar that accepts the option - if indeed any
registrars will! When was this decided?
- Rec #16 takes geographic differentiation off the table. My
recollection is that we put that decision into Phase 2. When was this
- Rec #18 does not make sense to me. It says that Temp Spec sections
4.1 and 4.2 are to be replaced "upon expiration". What is the purpose
of replacing these sections once the Temp Spec is no longer
operative? And how does that affect access? I note that Rec #28
temporarily reinstates the Temp Spec, but the version PRIOR to expiration.
- Rec #29 requires explicit action from registrars before the Admin
fields can be eliminated. Either we need to explicitly say that this
action must be taken prior to 29 February 2020, or we need to include
them in Rec #5 listing all RDDS fields flagging them as being there
only until the Rec #29 action is taken.
On a less substantive level:
- We say the Tech name and contact fields are option, but in the
various tables, the are not flagged with a trailing (opt.) like the
other optional fields are.
- In Rec #8, why are Tech name and contacts transmitted by registries
to escrow but not by registrars (as currently required by the RAA)?
- Rec #13 makes a reference to "Recommendation X". I presume this
should be Rec #6.
- Rec #21 makes reference to Thick and Thin registries, a concept
that we are told no longer exists.
The first issues have a direct bearing on whether the ALAC can
support this report and I would appreciate a quick reply.
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team