[registrars] .net thick/thin discussion

[Jens Wagner]

Absolutely!

IRIS has been designed for such queries, however it's not an RFC yet. 
The EPP protocol should be sufficient for this purpose. And we only need 
one protocol.

  -  jens

Tim Ruiz schrieb:

>EPP or IRIS doesn't really matter (although I think IRIS makes more sense).
>The point is that an XML based schema for transfer related Whois queries is
>a good solution.
>
>Tim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
>[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jens Wagner
>Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:40 AM
>To: Larry Erlich
>Cc: faure at globvill.de; registrars at dnso.org; Alexander Siffrin
>Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
>
>Larry Erlich schrieb:
>
>  
>
>>Marcus Faure wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>even with a thin model, the first point of contact is the registry, e.g.
>>>      
>>>
>you
>  
>
>>>have to go to the Internic whois first before you know which other whois
>>>to query. Therefore the registry must be monitored closely, but IMHO doing
>>>      
>>>
>your
>  
>
>>>own whois does not help here. Sitefinder is a keyword for this discussion.
>>>
>>>As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more
>>>difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model
>>>      
>>>
>that
>  
>
>>>Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe
>>>      
>>>
>that
>  
>
>>>the average user understands it.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Can you explain what you mean by "honestly I do not believe that the
>>    
>>
>average
>  
>
>>user understands it"?
>>
>>    
>>
>What happened during the .ORG Transition? Didn't you receive many 
>customer inquiries regarding the WHOIS? We sure did, as our customers 
>were confused. We need to think more for the customer and to the benefit 
>of the registrant himself instead of solely the registrar.
>
>The confusion beneath the registrants was exactlly due to the 
>thick+thin-whois! There were a lot of problems regarding registrar 
>transfers due to one registrar being "thin" and the other "thick", which 
>resulted in more support --> higher costs!
>
>  
>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer
>>>field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the
>>>      
>>>
>member
>  
>
>>>number, but can also contain a URL.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>How are you going to translate the "optional maintainer field"
>>in the registry whois output so that a registrant can understand
>>who the reseller is? Are you going to ask the registry to 
>>lookup and display 2-3 lines of human readable information? And that they
>>    
>>
>will
>  
>
>>agree to even make modification to add this field? 
>>
>>    
>>
>This should be proposed as an EPP extension anyway. At least one line of 
>text per domain name should be usable for such purposes.
>
>  
>
>>Will you also have the registry (if thick model) display the
>>registrar in a human readable format? Or does the registrant have
>>to do a further search with a code to find out, for example, who
>>registrar "R33-LROR" is?
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>This is up to the registry. However there should be a webinterface that 
>shows all informations 'pretty-printed'.
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jens Wagner
>CTO Key-Systems GmbH
>
>Key-Systems GmbH
>Prager Ring 4-12
>66482 Zweibrücken
>Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50
>Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51
>Email: support at rrpproxy.net
>
>www.key-systems.net
>www.domaindiscount24.com
>www.RRPproxy.net
>www.Key-Fashion.de
>
>
>  
>
>>Larry Erlich
>>
>>http://www.DomainRegistry.com
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Yours,
>>>Marcus
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>