[gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91

Tue Nov 25 16:06:48 UTC 2014

Question #8: It is permissible for the registry contracts or the RAA to
specify fields that are mandatory above and beyond those in the EPP
specification.  The EPP spec is a baseline as far as data fields, and allows
registries (or in this case ICANN) to have policy authority and make fields
such as Street #1 mandatory.  The 2013 RAA requires that registrars collect,
validate, and provision street and phone info . so I don't see how there's
any open question for discussion here.   Besides, I can't see how ICANN
could ever allowed registrations that do not include a street address or
phone number - it would make WHOIS accuracy efforts impossible.   

Question #9 might be addressed in the registry contract.  Does Spec 4
paragraph 1.3 allow the association of two Admin contacts to one domain,
for example?   

Question #10: go back to the Applicant Guidebook Question 26, and also look
at contract Spec 4 paragraph 1.10.    It is the Searchable WHOIS service
that allows wildcarding.  The registry contract says that registries are not
required to offer searchable WHOIS; those who want to can offer it.    The
contract also says that if it is offered, Searchable WHOIS must be provided
on the Web-based WHOIS service ONLY, not on port 43 (see Spec 3 paragraph
1.10.1).   If ICANN is stating that port 43 output must return only one
record at a time, that seems to be in keeping with the contract and is an
FYI clarification, not a new requirement.

All best,

--Greg

From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On
Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Gustavo Lozano
Cc: gtld-tech at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91

* PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 11/25/2014 at 8:49:12 AM

Gustavo,

Below are the notes that I took from the meeting.  Hopefully others have
additional notes to add or update to these.    

1.	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. 
2.	Gustavo described changes between Version 1 and 2 of the WHOIS
Clarifications.  
3.	Gustavo stated that new fields require the use of an RSEP.   
4.	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".  

1.	There was the recommendation to enable registries to test the PDT
testing validation ahead of enforcing it.  

5.	Question - Can we wait for RDAP?  RDAP will take time and we cannot
wait.
6.	Question - Why return non-existent fields using a key and empty
value?  

1.	To stay in line with Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement
2.	It was brought up that there is a mix of including non-existent
fields and also support for optional fields.  
3.	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.  
4.	Action Item - ICANN to bring the feedback back for internal
discussion and provide a response to the gtld-tech list. 

7.	Question - Why is the contact name optional, since it's required in
EPP?

1.	ICANN believed that it was either name or organization, but that is
not the case.  
2.	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"

8.	Question - Why is the contact phone and contact street required?  

1.	Contact phone and street is a required field in the RAA.  
2.	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.
3.	Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address.

9.	Question - How to handle multiple contacts of the same type (Admin,
Tech, Billing)

1.	Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement only supports a single
contact per type, so the Registry must select only one to display.  

10.	Question - Why include the requirement that WHOIS queries for domain
name data MUST return only one record per WHOIS query?  

1.	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.  
2.	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>
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>

* Gould, James <JGould at verisign.com>
* Issuer: Symantec Corporation - Unverified

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141125/630b9808/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4109 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141125/630b9808/image001-0001.png>