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 like to keep things simple, so option two is the path forward in my opinion. However, let's assume only a few IRT members reply by Friday, does that automatically mean that option two is the path forward? Thanks, Theo Geurts | Compliance & Policy Officer Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: legal@realtimeregister.com Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-04-05 12:48 AM:
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
Good Afternoon, I would agree that Option 2 is the better approach. I do believe we still need to have discussion on what a bulk transfer is, we would like to see a process that creates the least amount of throw away code as possible. Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 5:48 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] 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
Agreed! From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 12:21 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Good Afternoon, I would agree that Option 2 is the better approach. I do believe we still need to have discussion on what a bulk transfer is, we would like to see a process that creates the least amount of throw away code as possible. Thanks Roger 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: Monday, April 04, 2016 5:48 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] 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 am clearly in favor of option 2. It aligns with the scope of moving data from registrars to registry without touching on accuracy or quality as part of this exercise. Thanks Alex -- Alexander Schwertner Vice President Products OpenSRS, a division of Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1217 Am 2016-04-04 um 6:48 PM schrieb Fabien Betremieux:
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
Option 1 has too many uncertainty and many unforeseen issues may be encountered by all parties involved. Option 2 seems to be a more reasonable solutions. On 06/04/2016, 12:34 AM, "Alexander Schwertner" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org on behalf of aschwertner@tucows.com> wrote:
I am clearly in favor of option 2. It aligns with the scope of moving data from registrars to registry without touching on accuracy or quality as part of this exercise.
Thanks Alex
-- Alexander Schwertner Vice President Products OpenSRS, a division of Tucows +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1217
Am 2016-04-04 um 6:48 PM schrieb Fabien Betremieux:
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
As I made the initial proposal for registries to implement validation based on the EPP standards in RFC5733 I'm sure it will be no surprise that I favor option 1. I think RFC5733 is a well understood and defined standard that represents a nice middle ground as far as validation goes. I recognize that there is an argument to be made for both less validation as suggested in option 2 or more validation as was expressed by some IRT members when the initial proposal was first discussed (for example there was concern that the address 1 field was not required). If we do take the option 2 approach I request that we be clear on what is meant by "registries do not impose any checks on registration data..." That's fairly nebulous. I assume we would still have all the same fields but for example under phone extension, currently only numeric values are accepted. Would we remove this restriction and allow ASCII characters as well.... UTF8? I would think we would still need to make the Contact ID and Auth Info fields required. I would also want to keep the Max field lengths in place for the various fields as that has sizing implications on our systems. I think it's possible to sync the transition of new and existing registrations with either option but I think either way it will take longer for existing registrations. I'm not opposed to syncing them up but I don't think it makes sense to hold up one effort for the other. I agree with Roger's statement about having a discussion on what a bulk transfer is. Thank you, Marc From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 6:48 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] 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
Thanks Marc, Some great points there. Seems regardless the path forward we still need to discuss this more. Are there perhaps any contractual obligations on the Registry side that would prevent option two as the path forward? Thanks, Theo Anderson, Marc schreef op 2016-04-05 08:32 PM:
As I made the initial proposal for registries to implement validation based on the EPP standards in RFC5733 I'm sure it will be no surprise that I favor option 1. I think RFC5733 is a well understood and defined standard that represents a nice middle ground as far as validation goes.
I recognize that there is an argument to be made for both less validation as suggested in option 2 or more validation as was expressed by some IRT members when the initial proposal was first discussed (for example there was concern that the address 1 field was not required).
If we do take the option 2 approach I request that we be clear on what is meant by "registries do not impose any checks on registration data…" That's fairly nebulous. I assume we would still have all the same fields but for example under phone extension, currently only numeric values are accepted. Would we remove this restriction and allow ASCII characters as well…. UTF8? I would think we would still need to make the Contact ID and Auth Info fields required. I would also want to keep the Max field lengths in place for the various fields as that has sizing implications on our systems.
I think it's possible to sync the transition of new and existing registrations with either option but I think either way it will take longer for existing registrations. I'm not opposed to syncing them up but I don't think it makes sense to hold up one effort for the other.
I agree with Roger's statement about having a discussion on what a bulk transfer is.
Thank you,
Marc
FROM: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Fabien Betremieux SENT: Monday, April 04, 2016 6:48 PM TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org SUBJECT: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] 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
Agree with Marc that we should discuss what validation parameters are enforced for each attribute. Would that be able to be covered in the next meeting or should we start with a update to the rules that Marc sent out previously? Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) 319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadnall@godaddy.com) with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:29 AM To: Anderson, Marc Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick Thanks Marc, Some great points there. Seems regardless the path forward we still need to discuss this more. Are there perhaps any contractual obligations on the Registry side that would prevent option two as the path forward? Thanks, Theo Anderson, Marc schreef op 2016-04-05 08:32 PM:
As I made the initial proposal for registries to implement validation based on the EPP standards in RFC5733 I'm sure it will be no surprise that I favor option 1. I think RFC5733 is a well understood and defined standard that represents a nice middle ground as far as validation goes.
I recognize that there is an argument to be made for both less validation as suggested in option 2 or more validation as was expressed by some IRT members when the initial proposal was first discussed (for example there was concern that the address 1 field was not required).
If we do take the option 2 approach I request that we be clear on what is meant by "registries do not impose any checks on registration data…" That's fairly nebulous. I assume we would still have all the same fields but for example under phone extension, currently only numeric values are accepted. Would we remove this restriction and allow ASCII characters as well…. UTF8? I would think we would still need to make the Contact ID and Auth Info fields required. I would also want to keep the Max field lengths in place for the various fields as that has sizing implications on our systems.
I think it's possible to sync the transition of new and existing registrations with either option but I think either way it will take longer for existing registrations. I'm not opposed to syncing them up but I don't think it makes sense to hold up one effort for the other.
I agree with Roger's statement about having a discussion on what a bulk transfer is.
Thank you,
Marc
FROM: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Fabien Betremieux SENT: Monday, April 04, 2016 6:48 PM TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org SUBJECT: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Jody, Marc, Any input we could gather on this topic prior to our meeting next week will certainly help make the discussion more effective then. Would you be willing to share your perspective as to what you believe should/could be the minimal set of validation parameters applicable to an ³Option 2² type of transition of existing data ? Thank you in advance Fabien -----Original Message----- From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jody Kolker <jkolker@godaddy.com> Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 4:04 PM To: gtheo <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Cc: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
Agree with Marc that we should discuss what validation parameters are enforced for each attribute. Would that be able to be covered in the next meeting or should we start with a update to the rules that Marc sent out previously?
Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) 319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadnall@godaddy.com) with any feedback.
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtheo Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:29 AM To: Anderson, Marc Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Proposal for the Transition of Existing Registrations from Thin to Thick
Thanks Marc,
Some great points there. Seems regardless the path forward we still need to discuss this more.
Are there perhaps any contractual obligations on the Registry side that would prevent option two as the path forward?
Thanks,
Theo
Anderson, Marc schreef op 2016-04-05 08:32 PM:
As I made the initial proposal for registries to implement validation based on the EPP standards in RFC5733 I'm sure it will be no surprise that I favor option 1. I think RFC5733 is a well understood and defined standard that represents a nice middle ground as far as validation goes.
I recognize that there is an argument to be made for both less validation as suggested in option 2 or more validation as was expressed by some IRT members when the initial proposal was first discussed (for example there was concern that the address 1 field was not required).
If we do take the option 2 approach I request that we be clear on what is meant by "registries do not impose any checks on registration data" That's fairly nebulous. I assume we would still have all the same fields but for example under phone extension, currently only numeric values are accepted. Would we remove this restriction and allow ASCII characters as well. UTF8? I would think we would still need to make the Contact ID and Auth Info fields required. I would also want to keep the Max field lengths in place for the various fields as that has sizing implications on our systems.
I think it's possible to sync the transition of new and existing registrations with either option but I think either way it will take longer for existing registrations. I'm not opposed to syncing them up but I don't think it makes sense to hold up one effort for the other.
I agree with Roger's statement about having a discussion on what a bulk transfer is.
Thank you,
Marc
FROM: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Fabien Betremieux SENT: Monday, April 04, 2016 6:48 PM TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org SUBJECT: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] 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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Alexander Schwertner -
Anderson, Marc -
Brent Lee -
Fabien Betremieux -
gtheo -
Jennifer Gore Standiford -
Jody Kolker -
Roger D Carney