<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Registrars - gTLD Registries Constituencies - Items for Discussion?</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=393093821-11102004>hi all,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=393093821-11102004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=393093821-11102004>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</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=393093821-11102004></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=393093821-11102004>bhavin</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Hoover, Carolyn
[mailto:choover@dotcoop.coop] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:24
AM<BR><B>To:</B> bhavin.t@directi.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Registrars - gTLD
Registries Constituencies - Items for Discussion?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Bhavin,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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 </FONT><A
href="http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2004-08/msg00001.html"><U><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2004-08/msg00001.html</FONT></U></A><FONT
face=Arial size=2> ) 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).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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)</FONT></P>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>Have any other issues been noted by
Registrars?</FONT></B> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></P>
<P><B><FONT face=Arial size=2>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?</FONT></B></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. Com/net registries
should remain thin after transition.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>2. Registries should conduct an OT&E
environment prior to initiating a transition period
</FONT><BR>
<FONT face=Arial size=2>*****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.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. Registries should
sync up their business rules as much as possible (e.g., whois fields).</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>4. A 3rd party should
validate that the registries have synced the rules prior to initiating a
transition period</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>5. Transition processes should be the same
or as similar as possible (see #14).</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>6. RRP-EPP transitions should allow for
legacy registrations until transitions are completed and checked in order not to
turn off registration/renewals</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>7. The transition
should be as long as possible, at least through Q1 2005</FONT>
<BR>
<FONT face=Arial size=2>***** This
was addressed in the request for extension for EPP 1.0.</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>8. Com/net transition should
allow for an additional year beyond BONI</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>9. The registries should not require auth
codes for transfers until all transition periods are done.</FONT>
<BR>
<FONT face=Arial size=2>*****
Required by the Transfer Policy.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>10. An implementation committee that includes
registrars should be established.</FONT>
<BR>
<FONT face=Arial size=2>***** This
has been established and two items have been presented to the registries.</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>11. There should be a
standardization of maintenance notices and other types of notices and
reports.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>12.
Registrars should be able to electronically query registries about their
balances</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>13.
Registries should provide a list of recommended developers for reference by
registrars that need consultants.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>14. Registries have not published any
documentation or software regarding registry changes such as the transfer
undo.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thank you for any comments on the above items that I
can share with the gTLD Registries Constituency. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards, </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Carolyn T. Hoover</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>dotCoop Operations Center</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>1401 New
York Avenue, Suite 1100</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Washington, DC
20005</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tel: +1.202.383.5453</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Fax: +1.202 347.1968</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>Toll-Free: +1.866.288.3154 (Intl Callers - Check </FONT><A
href="file://www.att.com/traveler"><U><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>www.att.com/traveler</FONT></U></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> for your
local toll free number)</FONT> </P></BODY></HTML>