[gtld-tech] EPDP recommendations and EPP

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 27 Feb 2019, at 06:40, Gavin Brown <gavin.brown at centralnic.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The EPDP final report says that, if a domain name has a technical
> contact (whose information is different from the registrant's), the only
> data that registrars should send to registries are the technical
> contact's name, email address, and phone number (if any).
> 
> Assuming that technical contacts should still be created and managed as
> RFC 5733 contact objects, and also assuming that this recommendation is
> adopted without change, it poses a challenge, because the RFC requires
> all contact objects to have <city> and <cc> elements.
> 
> I've been thinking about how this could be resolved, here are some ideas
> (in descending order of nastiness):
> 
> * write a new RFC which updates RFC 5733 to make the <city> and <cc>
> elements optional
> 
> * write a new EPP extension which makes the technical contact's name,
> email address, and phone number directly attributes of the the domain
> name rather than a contact object
> 
> * define a "convention" that allows the <city> and <cc> elements to
> contain placeholder values, such as: <city>-</city> and <cc>XX</cc>
> which pose no data protection issues.


I think the 3rd option is the easiest at this point, but I suggest "REDACTED DATA" for the city field, And I believe we should extend that to sp (state/province). For cc I like XX since XA to XZ are user-assigned in ISO 3166-1 alpha-2.




Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20190227/abf6ee6a/signature.asc>