[Gnso-epdp-team] Issues with the report

[Alan Greenberg]

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 
decision taken?

- 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.

Alan