I simply responded to Roger's question regarding the address 'meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct?' I do not think you can have a blank address field, whether the address is verifiable is another issue. And I do not know if any registrar would fully verify a RNH address before they approve a new domain registration. We have dealt with a domain's inaccurate whois complaint from ICANN a few months ago, and the RNH is located in the African Continent. At the end we had to verify the RNH's address and provided the result to ICANN as they had requested below - 5. If any of the Whois data was updated during the course of your registrar's investigation or if the RNH has changed, provide the methods and results of your registrar's validation of format of the Whois data. Examples of standard formats include RFC 5322 for email addresses, ITU-T E.164 notation for the format of international telephone numbers and for the format of postal addresses the UPU Postal addressing format templates, the S42 address templates (as they may be updated) or other standard formats for the applicable territory. For more details please refer to the Whois Accuracy Program Specification. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Jennifer Gore Standiford To: Joyce Lin Cc: Roger D Carney ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contactvalidationrules I respectfully disagree Joyce. What tool or standard will be provided or used for all registrars to before verification of 'full address'. As for phone number format, standardization is currently required under the 2013 RAA, however 'validation' of phone number would also require a 3rd party tool to perform such action that could support all domestic and international phone number formats. Jennifer On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Joyce Lin <jlin@007names.com> wrote: Hi Roger, I believe a full verifiable address and valid phone number with correct format are definitely required in thick whois. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger D Carney To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validationrules Good Afternoon, Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful. I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct? Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Dear IRT Members, At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules. Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry. As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I’m calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration. I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don’t allow it at all. I don’t believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT. Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts. Thank you, Marc Anderson <image001.gif> Marc Anderson Product Manager mcanderson@verisign.com m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com <!--[if !vml]--><image003.gif><!--[endif]--> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt