[registrars] FW: Registrars - gTLD Registries Constituencies - Items for Discussion?

[Mike Lampson]

Bhavin,

PIR has unilaterally decided that the <host:chg> operation of RFC 3732,
section 3.2.5 is too dangerous to use.  See the following from PIR's FAQ:
http://www.pir.org/faqs/for_registrars/epp_upgrade#howmultiplehosts

Essentially, they are prohibiting the renaming of nameservers, which would
nullify the need for the queing of <poll> messages as I requested in item #2
below.  My question is: should we ask for the behavior of this operation to
be consistent for all Registries?

Personlly, I do not see that this operation is so dangerous.  This also
brings up the issue of how do you delete an expired domain if other domains
are using nameservers (hosts) belonging to this expired domain.  From RFC
3731, Section 3.2.2:

> A domain object SHOULD NOT be deleted if subordinate host
> objects are associated with the domain object.  For example,
> if domain "example.com" exists, and host object
> "ns1.example.com" also exists, then domain "example.com"
> SHOULD NOT be deleted until host "ns1.example.com" has been
> either deleted or renamed to exist in a different
> superordinate domain.

Of course the subordinate host objects cannot be deleted if it is referenced
by different "superordinate" domains.  These other domains cannot be changed
by the Registrar wishing to delete EXAMPLE.COM if these "superordinate"
domains are sponsored by other Registrars.

Thanks,

_Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Bhavin Turakhia
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:42 PM
To: 'Registrars Constituency'
Subject: [registrars] FW: Registrars - gTLD Registries Constituencies -
Items for Discussion?


hi all,

please read below email from Carolyn Hoover on behalf of the registries
constituency. some of the issues need comments from us, and it would be
great if all of you can send in your comments to carolyn, unless they are
for a specific registry, in which case you may send them on the mailing list
or to the concerned registry

bhavin




From: Hoover, Carolyn [mailto:choover at dotcoop.coop]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:24 AM
To: bhavin.t at directi.com
Subject: Registrars - gTLD Registries Constituencies - Items for Discussion?


Dear Bhavin,
I know that the registrars have been very busy over the last month or so
dealing with the change in leadership in the Registrar Constituency as well
as other issues critical to the Constituency.
On behalf of the gTLD Registries Constituency, I had previously contacted
the Registrars that had expressed interest in participating in an EPP 1.0
Implementation Group to discuss issues relating to that upcoming
implementation and address any open issues.  Two issues were identified and
are under discussion within our constituency.
1. A change to the EPP <poll> command response was implemented in draft 7 of
the EPP specification and made it into the final 1.0 release. (See
http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2004-08/msg00001.html ) This
change probably doesn't make sense and NeuLevel has documented that they
will follow the earlier "non-standard" method described in draft 6 and
earlier. Regardless of the whether the spec is followed or not, the gTLD
registries should be consistent in the data returned in response to the
<poll> command. (From James Gould (VGRS) to IETF list).
2. Right now Verisign sends out a daily report of all nameserver renamings.
Registrars need comparable information from the EPP Registries. I believe
this should be implemented by having Registries send a <poll> message to all
Registrars each time an internal nameserver is renamed. This is so we can
then propagate this nameserver rename to external host records in the other
Registries. For example, I could have a nameserver blue.example.org hosting
the domain iaregistry.biz. If I rename this nameserver to
red.hostdomain.org, this change will have no affect in the BIZ registry. See
section 1.1 of RFC 3731 for an explanation of external hosts. As external
hosts are considered private to each Registrar, every Registrar must take
action on any domains that they sponsor that happen to use this nameserver.
(From Mike Lampon at The Registry at Info Avenue)
Have any other issues been noted by Registrars?
In addition, during those exchanges, one registrar noted that there had been
a list of other items of concern to both registrars and the registries that
had been discussed amongst the registrars in May 2004 but that had not been
addressed.    We believe that some of these items have been addressed as
noted below.  Other items have been jointly discussed in teleconference
calls as well as the Kuala Lumpur joint meeting.
Do you feel that any of these items require further discussion?  Are there
new items that should be jointly discussed between the two constituencies
either in a teleconference or at a joint session in Capetown?  Which
approach do Registrars prefer?  If a meeting in Capetown is desired, when
would there be time to meet?
1.      Com/net registries should remain thin after transition.
2.      Registries should conduct an OT&E environment prior to initiating a
transition period
                *****This was addressed in the request for extension for EPP
1.0.  OT&E will exist at least between 12/31/04 and 3/31/05 and longer for
some registries.
3.      Registries should sync up their business rules as much as possible
(e.g., whois fields).
4.      A 3rd party should validate that the registries have synced the
rules prior to initiating a transition period
5.      Transition processes should be the same or as similar as possible
(see #14).
6.      RRP-EPP transitions should allow for legacy registrations until
transitions are completed and checked in order not to turn off
registration/renewals
7.      The transition should be as long as possible, at least through Q1
2005
                ***** This was addressed in the request for extension for
EPP 1.0.
8.      Com/net transition should allow for an additional year beyond BONI
9.      The registries should not require auth codes for transfers until all
transition periods are done.
                ***** Required by the Transfer Policy.
10.     An implementation committee that includes registrars should be
established.
                ***** This has been established and two items have been
presented to the registries.
11.     There should be a standardization of maintenance notices and other
types of notices and reports.
12.     Registrars should be able to electronically query registries about
their balances
13.     Registries should provide a list of recommended developers for
reference by registrars that need consultants.
14.     Registries have not published any documentation or software
regarding registry changes such as the transfer undo.
Thank you for any comments on the above items that I can share with the gTLD
Registries Constituency.
Regards,
Carolyn T. Hoover
dotCoop Operations Center
1401 New York Avenue, Suite 1100
Washington, DC  20005
Tel:   +1.202.383.5453
Fax:  +1.202 347.1968
Toll-Free: +1.866.288.3154 (Intl Callers - Check www.att.com/traveler for
your local toll free number)