[gtld-tech] Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory v.20141209

Thu Dec 11 14:32:16 UTC 2014

Well, If that is true, then we have a terminology problem, and the document should define what entity or data portion is referred to for each of the contact types...

Alex

Von: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele at blacknight.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2014 14:04
An: Alexander Mayrhofer; Gustavo Lozano; gtld-tech at icann.org
Cc: Fabien Betremieux
Betreff: RE: [gtld-tech] Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory v.20141209

Alex

Registrant contact and administrative contact have different meanings and powers under the ICANN policies, so I'm not sure which one it should be, but it cannot be changed arbitrarily

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Mayrhofer
Sent: 11 December 2014 12:54
To: Gustavo Lozano; gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>
Cc: Fabien Betremieux
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory v.20141209

Gustavo, Fabien,

thanks for the update, and for addressing some of the issues that we discussed. I have reviewed the current draft version, and my feedback is as follows:

-          MINOR: I.1 could still be improved regarding the seperation between registries and registrars. Since the Section title says that the clarification applies to both registries and registrars, and the clarification mentions both Agreements, this could be misinterpreted as that both parties have to show all fields from both agreements - which is not intended, as i understood. Adding something like "section 1.4.2 of the RDDS spec of the 2013 RAA (applicable to Registrars only) .." would make it clear with minimal text impact.

-          MINOR: Furthermore, I.1 just mentions section 1.5 of the Registry Agreement (which contains the domain object example), but does not mention 1.6 and 1.7 of the Agreement (which contains examples of the registrar and nameserver objecT). Is that intentional? Clarification I.13 for example mentions all three sections...

-          MAJOR: I.27 "Domain Name registrations MUST have one and only one administrative contact" is either badly written, or goes beyond the ICANN-defined purpose of the document, because  "Domain Name Registrations" in my opinion would also concern the input side (EPP), so that would be beyond scope of the WHOIS clarifications. I don't see that requirement in the Registry agreement, and also EPP allows several "admin-c" contact - furthermore, as discussed in Honolulu, several Registry operator do allow more than one admin-c. Therefore, my assumption is that this should read either:

o   "_WHOIS output of_ Domain Name Registrations MUST have one and only one administrative contact" (in case it was really  intended to limit the admin-c output to one instance, as discussed in HNL), or

o   "Domain Name registrations MUST have one and only one _registrant_ contact" (which would be in-line with the EPP input side, but seems like a redundant requirement then)

-          MEDIUM: I.28/I.30/I.32 - i'm confused by the reference to I.28, because there doesn't seem to be much of a choice in whether or not to implement I.28 ("MUST NOT")? So, given that there is no choice in I.28, that means that any registry has to implement I.30 (and no registry can implement I.32). That means that I.30 seems to be a new requirement? Given that Gustavo and Francisco said that there is no intention to add new requirements via the clarifications, this should probably be changed/clarified.

-          MEDIUM: I.34 seems to be a new requirement as well. I do understand, however, that since this is just a SHOULD, registries can elect to not support that new type of query? Particularly, since (as described below), the authoritative source for any information about an IANA-registered registrar should be IANA / ICANN itself, rather than the individual registries...

-          More on a general note, i'm confused why registries are required to supply such rich information for Registrars (including several contacts). Essentially, information in the registry WHOIS could be reduced to displaying the IANA ID (and maybe the name, WHOIS server and registrar URL for convenience), because the set of registrars in all registries is defined to be a subset of the IANA registrar registry anyways, and hence authoritative data can be fetched from the Registrar's own WHOIS, or even IANA and/or ICANN itself..

tia,
Alex

Von: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gustavo Lozano
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Dezember 2014 01:41
An: gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>
Cc: Fabien Betremieux
Betreff: [gtld-tech] Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory v.20141209

Hello colleagues,

Attached you will find the Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory. Two versions are provided for your reference: clean version and redline against the original advisory (v 1.0) as published on 12 September 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en).

This draft version incorporates feedback gathered from various contracted parties, cases/emails sent to ICANN, the WHOIS Clarification Advisory meeting held at IETF 91 in November, and feedback sent to the gtld-tech mailing list.

A conference call, with the objective of gathering feedback on this draft version, will take place on Tuesday 16 December 2014. If you want to participate in the conference call, please send me an email to fabien.betremieux at icann.org<mailto:fabien.betremieux at icann.org>.

Please send any feedback or questions you have on this version of the advisory to the mailing list as soon as possible, in order for ICANN Staff to discuss internally and provide an answer during the conference call.

It's important to remember:
* This advisory is not meant to create new requirements for contracted parties.
* This advisory is not meant to redefine the WHOIS protocol.
* This advisory resulted from questions sent by contracted and third parties seeking clarification on the Whois (RDDS) requirements in the New gTLD base RA and 2013 RAA.

Regards,
Gustavo
ICANN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141211/1fea83c3/attachment-0001.html>