[Gnso-epdp-team] Issues with the report

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 12:48:06 UTC 2019

Dear Kurt
The changes that I proposed are not reflected
Pls kindly include them

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:40 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190213/8d217676/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list