[gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91

[Gould, James]

Gustavo,

Below are the notes that I took from the meeting.  Hopefully others have additional notes to add or update to these.    
Gustavo started the meeting by defining the purpose of the WHOIS Clarifications in clarifying items in Specification 4 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), based on questions posted to ICANN.  The goal was to not create new requirements. 
Gustavo described changes between Version 1 and 2 of the WHOIS Clarifications.  
Gustavo stated that new fields require the use of an RSEP.   
The new target date for enforcing the WHOIS Clarifications is March 31, 2015 instead of February 12, 2015.  ICANN asked whether there is a more reasonable date and the feedback was “as late as possible”.  
There was the recommendation to enable registries to test the PDT testing validation ahead of enforcing it.  
Question - Can we wait for RDAP?  RDAP will take time and we cannot wait.
Question - Why return non-existent fields using a key and empty value?  
To stay in line with Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement
It was brought up that there is a mix of including non-existent fields and also support for optional fields.  
Excluding non-existent fields could also support Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement, since Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement did not include any empty fields.  
Action Item - ICANN to bring the feedback back for internal discussion and provide a response to the gtld-tech list. 
Question - Why is the contact name optional, since it’s required in EPP?
ICANN believed that it was either name or organization, but that is not the case.  
Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address.  The recommendation is update it to “Registrant/Admin/Tech[/Billing] Name and Organization - Name is required and Organization is optional"
Question - Why is the contact phone and contact street required?  
Contact phone and street is a required field in the RAA.  
Contact phone and street is not required in EPP and is not required for the registries, so therefore it should not be required in the Registry WHOIS.  Cascading a Registrar requirement in the RAA that is not a Registry or EPP requirement through to a Registry WHOIS requirement must not be done.
Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address.
Question - How to handle multiple contacts of the same type (Admin, Tech, Billing)
Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement only supports a single contact per type, so the Registry must select only one to display.  
Question - Why include the requirement that WHOIS queries for domain name data MUST return only one record per WHOIS query?  
Multiple registries support wildcard queries in WHOIS, where if more than one object (domain or host) matches the query name ( with or without TLD ), a list of matching names is returned instead of a single record.  This is a useful feature that would need to be removed based on the Clarifications requirement.  As earlier stated, the goal of the Clarifications was to not create new requirements.  
Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address.  
Can ICANN respond with a status and update on the action items?  

Thanks,

—

JG




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould at Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com

On Nov 14, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello Colleagues,
> 
> Attached the slides that I used during this meeting.
>  
> Please note that some of the clarifications / updates presented in the slides may change based on the feedback obtained during the meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> Gustavo
> 
> From: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2014 at 10:07
> To: "gtld-tech at icann.org" <gtld-tech at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91
> 
>> Hello Colleagues,
>> 
>> The room has enough capacity for all of you interested in assisting physically based on the emails that I received.
>> 
>> Adobe Connect will be used for remote participation. Please log into https://icann.adobeconnect.com/tech-services at the time of the meeting (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20141113T15&p1=103&p2=1440).
>> 
>> The dial-in bridge will not be available, we will use Adobe Connect for audio. If possible, please use a headset for remote participation.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Gustavo
>> 
>> From: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano at icann.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 10:42
>> To: <gtld-tech at icann.org>
>> Subject: Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91
>> 
>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> If you are at the IETF91, an informal meeting to get feedback about the Whois advisory published by ICANN (i.e.  
>>>  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en), will take place at Tapa Tower - Iolani 3 on Thursday (15.00 to 16.30 local time). 
>>> 
>>> Please send me a email if you are planing to assist in order to validate that the capacity of the room is sufficient.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Gustavo
>>> ICAN
> <whois_advisory.pdf>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141125/81576aec/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png
Type: image/png
Size: 4109 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141125/81576aec/BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E081-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141125/81576aec/smime-0001.p7s>