[gtld-tech] Registrar Expiration Date I-D

[Maxim Alzoba]

Hello All, 

I see lack of consensus.

Shall we conduct a poll where every member of the group could suggest the solution?

Then we can use it with greater community to find some mutually acceptable way out of this?

like: 

1. conduct a research on how much is the difference between registry & registrar registration dates (few seconds)- x %, few minutes - y%, few hours z%, few days - ...% , other -
1.1. find out typical reasons for discrepancy
1.2. suggest resolution
1.3. implement it
1.4 Amnesty [make them even] for old records (works for minimal discrepancy fine, not a big issue) , rules for bigger difference in records.

The reason why registries can not change their registration date is that 
backends of most registries work in real time (or hope to do so). The records are inserted and the date and time of that moment is a registration date&time for a registry, and it is impossible to change that logic without rewriting a large amount of  code or procuring services of another backend provider , which is a material change to the RA contract and most probably will go the way of disagreed change (18 month of debates).

P.s: we should not forget that what happens in TLD is a subject to this particular TLD's policies, and using something not compatible with it
is a subject of contractual compliance between a registry and a registrar.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)

On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:54 , Jody Kolker <jkolker at godaddy.com> wrote:

> <
> Since the registry doesn't have access to the life cycle of the registrar-registrant agreement, this value doesn't belong in the registry database -- any more than, say, the expiry date of the registrant's credit card belongs in the registry.  The reason for this is that it is dependent on the registrar's business logic, so it can't be in a shared repository like the registry.
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Thanks,
> Jody Kolker
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:27 PM
> To: gtld-tech at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Registrar Expiration Date I-D
> 
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 05:17:59PM -0500, Andrew Newton wrote:
>> Then can't the same be said of ANY new EPP extension? 
> 
> Any extension that would unnecessarily duplicate data from the side that has the direct relationship to the side that has the indirect relationship, yes.  In the case of contact data, the registry needs that because of the need for it in whois.  Anyway, it can be looked up in real time by the registrar.  (I know of at least one registrar that does that.)
> 
> The problem here is that this is data that _solely_ pertains to the relationship between the registrar and the registrant: it's about the lifetime of the contract between the registrant and the registrar, not about the life cycle of the domain object itself. 
> 
> Since the registry doesn't have access to the life cycle of the registrar-registrant agreement, this value doesn't belong in the registry database -- any more than, say, the expiry date of the registrant's credit card belongs in the registry.  The reason for this is that it is dependent on the registrar's business logic, so it can't be in a shared repository like the registry.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> Dyn
> asullivan at dyn.com