Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
Dear IRT members, This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone. Thank you for your attention Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches are emerging: Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted * The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks. * The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to: > * The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data > (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries¹ checks > * The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by > registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which > in itself would delay the definition of the implementation plan Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition * This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation * The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are thick. Considering the outcome of the IRT¹s meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward. We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week. Thank you in advance for your consideration Best Regards
I support the recommendation to proceed with option 2. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:54 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone. Thank you for your attention Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org<mailto:fabien.betremieux@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches are emerging: Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted * The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks. * The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to: * The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries' checks * The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of the implementation plan Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition * This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation * The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are thick. Considering the outcome of the IRT's meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward. We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week. Thank you in advance for your consideration Best Regards
I replied previously but not sure if it was received, I also agree to proceed with Option 2. Option 1 will add to many delays that are necessary right now. Chris George From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 6:49 AM To: 'Fabien Betremieux' <fabien.betremieux@icann.org>; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick I support the recommendation to proceed with option 2. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:54 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone. Thank you for your attention Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org<mailto:fabien.betremieux@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches are emerging: Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted * The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks. * The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to: * The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries' checks * The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of the implementation plan Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition * This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation * The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are thick. Considering the outcome of the IRT's meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward. We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week. Thank you in advance for your consideration Best Regards
Option 2 definitely will expedite the transition. I'm not sure if the process I'm thinking would be feasible and workable, especially on the registries' side. 1. registrars upload existing registrations data to the registry and they will all go through because the registry does not check the existing data integrity, 2. at certain point after the upload has been completed and the registry has all the registrations data, new registrations data will be checked. And if the registration data does not comply with whatever would be set then, the registration will fail, and the RNH will be forced to modify the data in order to successfully register a new domain. Since the data has been updated at the registry's the previous registrations data of this RNH will be automatically updated. Joyce 007names.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Metalitz, Steven To: 'Fabien Betremieux' ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick I support the recommendation to proceed with option 2. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:54 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone. Thank you for your attention Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches are emerging: Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted a.. The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks. b.. The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to: a.. The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries’ checks b.. The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of the implementation plan Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition a.. This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation b.. The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are thick. Considering the outcome of the IRT’s meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward. We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week. Thank you in advance for your consideration Best Regards ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Hi Joyce, You are right that option two is most likely to put us on a fast track. Keep in mind however that new registrations will have to comply with the RAA 2013 WHOIS SPEC. No matter who the Registry is, or what checks or what RFC they use, you still got to comply with the RAA 2013. This is not factual, but more as an example. We need to make sure that legacy data and new data are treated different. As there have been many versions of the RAA with different obligations there. So new data should be RAA 2013 compliant. If I am not making sense, blame it on a 16 hour workday with tons of meetings. Those meetings suck the energy out of everyone that is alive. Happy to discuss and explore the options at the next call. Best, Theo On 7-4-2016 21:33, Joyce Lin wrote:
Option 2 definitely will expedite the transition. I'm not sure if the process I'm thinking would be feasible and workable, especially on the registries' side. 1. registrars upload existing registrations data to the registry and they will all go through because the registry does not check the existing data integrity, 2. at certain point after the upload has been completed and the registry has all the registrations data, new registrations data will be checked. And if the registration data does not comply with whatever would be set then, the registration will fail, and the RNH will be forced to modify the data in order to successfully register a new domain. Since the data has been updated at the registry's the previous registrations data of this RNH will be automatically updated. Joyce 007names.com ----- Original Message -----
*From:* Metalitz, Steven <mailto:met@msk.com> *To:* 'Fabien Betremieux' <mailto:fabien.betremieux@icann.org> ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:49 AM *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
I support the recommendation to proceed with option 2.
Steve Metalitz
**
*From:*gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Fabien Betremieux *Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:54 AM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
Dear IRT members,
This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone.
Thank you for your attention
Best Regards
--
Fabien Betremieux
Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager
Global Domains Division, ICANN
*From: *Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org <mailto:fabien.betremieux@icann.org>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM *To: *"gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>> *Subject: *Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
Dear IRT members,
In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches are emerging:
Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted
* The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks. * The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to:
o The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries’ checks o The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of the implementation plan
Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition
* This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation * The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are thick.
Considering the outcome of the IRT’s meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward.
We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week.
Thank you in advance for your consideration
Best Regards
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
Get a drink and make sure you are really drunk, and will wake up full charged :-) Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: theo geurts To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org ; Joyce Lin Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Hi Joyce, You are right that option two is most likely to put us on a fast track. Keep in mind however that new registrations will have to comply with the RAA 2013 WHOIS SPEC. No matter who the Registry is, or what checks or what RFC they use, you still got to comply with the RAA 2013. This is not factual, but more as an example. We need to make sure that legacy data and new data are treated different. As there have been many versions of the RAA with different obligations there. So new data should be RAA 2013 compliant. If I am not making sense, blame it on a 16 hour workday with tons of meetings. Those meetings suck the energy out of everyone that is alive. Happy to discuss and explore the options at the next call. Best, Theo On 7-4-2016 21:33, Joyce Lin wrote: Option 2 definitely will expedite the transition. I'm not sure if the process I'm thinking would be feasible and workable, especially on the registries' side. 1. registrars upload existing registrations data to the registry and they will all go through because the registry does not check the existing data integrity, 2. at certain point after the upload has been completed and the registry has all the registrations data, new registrations data will be checked. And if the registration data does not comply with whatever would be set then, the registration will fail, and the RNH will be forced to modify the data in order to successfully register a new domain. Since the data has been updated at the registry's the previous registrations data of this RNH will be automatically updated. Joyce 007names.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Metalitz, Steven To: 'Fabien Betremieux' ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick I support the recommendation to proceed with option 2. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:54 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone. Thank you for your attention Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches are emerging: Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted a.. The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks. b.. The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to: a.. The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries’ checks b.. The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of the implementation plan Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition a.. This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation b.. The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are thick. Considering the outcome of the IRT’s meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward. We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week. Thank you in advance for your consideration Best Regards -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
Absolutely, new registrations will comply with whatever the data requirements or they will fail. And after all domains have been uploaded to the registry the 'fail' return will apply when an existing RNH tries to renew or modify a domain and the domain's data does not pass the check, and the RNH has to update the Contacts in order to have a successful transaction. Again, it is just my thinking. Joyce From: theo geurts To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org ; Joyce Lin Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Hi Joyce, You are right that option two is most likely to put us on a fast track. Keep in mind however that new registrations will have to comply with the RAA 2013 WHOIS SPEC. No matter who the Registry is, or what checks or what RFC they use, you still got to comply with the RAA 2013. This is not factual, but more as an example. We need to make sure that legacy data and new data are treated different. As there have been many versions of the RAA with different obligations there. So new data should be RAA 2013 compliant. If I am not making sense, blame it on a 16 hour workday with tons of meetings. Those meetings suck the energy out of everyone that is alive. Happy to discuss and explore the options at the next call. Best, Theo On 7-4-2016 21:33, Joyce Lin wrote: Option 2 definitely will expedite the transition. I'm not sure if the process I'm thinking would be feasible and workable, especially on the registries' side. 1. registrars upload existing registrations data to the registry and they will all go through because the registry does not check the existing data integrity, 2. at certain point after the upload has been completed and the registry has all the registrations data, new registrations data will be checked. And if the registration data does not comply with whatever would be set then, the registration will fail, and the RNH will be forced to modify the data in order to successfully register a new domain. Since the data has been updated at the registry's the previous registrations data of this RNH will be automatically updated. Joyce 007names.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Metalitz, Steven To: 'Fabien Betremieux' ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 9:49 AM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick I support the recommendation to proceed with option 2. Steve Metalitz From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:54 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Reminder - Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone. Thank you for your attention Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Dear IRT members, In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches are emerging: Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted a.. The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks. b.. The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to: a.. The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries’ checks b.. The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of the implementation plan Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition a.. This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation b.. The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are thick. Considering the outcome of the IRT’s meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward. We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week. Thank you in advance for your consideration Best Regards -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
Hello all, A few days ago I went for option 2 with the idea that option 2 will speed up the process significantly, I am however switching to option 1 as I have given option 2 some more thought. Option 2 does speed up the process it is also very likely that it will cause issues after the migration. How big those issues are going to be, I have no idea. This all boils down to the question I raised on one of earlier calls, how big is this issue of missing data? And I still think we should actually put a number on that prior to moving forward. Anyways, let's assume we go for option 2 and in this scenario, there are huge chunks of data missing. The current Registrar won't have many issues as they won't have issues now, right until the moment when a domain name is being transferred. Then the gaining Registrar has an issue as it is possible the gaining Registrar will end up with domain names with missing data, be it either through the regular transfer process or through a Registry bulk transfer. Thus, the gaining Registrar is inheriting the issues from the losing Registrar ie you as a gaining Registrar will have to correct the problems from the losing Registrar. Correcting those issues might be rather expensive and keep in mind that the IRTP C PDP is already live by then and will most likely make data correction even more complex. Sounds to me the next call even got more interesting than it already was ;) In addition to this, I think we also need to discuss Multibyte characters in contact handles. Beside the RFC is there any more documentation about this, how this is being handled? Best regards, Theo Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-04-07 01:53 PM:
Dear IRT members,
This is a friendly reminder that your contribution on this topic would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB in your time zone.
Thank you for your attention
Best Regards
-- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
From: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:48 AM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
Dear IRT members,
In our recent conference call, the IRT discussed the transition of existing registration from thin to thick. It is our understanding that two alternative approaches are emerging:
Option 1 - The registries impose some checks on the registration data before it can be accepted
* The initial proposal from the registries for such checks is based on EPP Standards (RFC 5733), with subsequent discussion of potential changes to such checks. * The main drawback of this approach is that the transition would likely to last a considerable amount of time due to:
* The need for registrars to process a very significant amount of data (collectively) to ensure it would pass the registries' checks * The need for Staff and the IRT to gather findings from data analysis by registrars before they can define a realistic implementation timeline, which in itself would delay the definition of the implementation plan
Option 2 - The registries do not impose any checks on the registration data during the transition
* This is a proposal emerging from recent discussions, considering that the Policy Recommendation does not include data accuracy requirements and therefore is out of scope for this implementation * The benefit of this approach is that it Is in scope with the policy recommendations, it reduces the implementation to a sizable bulk transfer of data, and it creates an opportunity to possibly synchronize the transition of new and existing registrations by defining a single cut-off date after which all registrations are thick.
Considering the outcome of the IRT's meeting with the RrSG in Marrakech, and considering recent community comments on the time it is taking to implement the transition from thin to thick, we would like to propose that the IRT move forward with Option 2 as we believe it is the most applicable path forward.
We would like to gather IRT members thoughts on our proposal to move forward with Option 2. Your input would be appreciated by Friday 8 April COB at the latest, for discussion during our next IRT meeting, which we are planning to organize the following week.
Thank you in advance for your consideration
Best Regards _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
participants (7)
-
Fabien Betremieux -
George, Christopher E -
gtheo -
Joyce Lin -
Metalitz, Steven -
Rob Golding -
theo geurts