Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4
Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. · Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? · At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. · Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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 Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> "One World, One Internet"
Theo, I’ll be sure to add to the agenda. For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. · Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? · At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. · Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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 Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet"
Just a note that at least a few registries have contractual obligations to display billing contact data. E.g., .mobi, https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/mobi-appendixs-2005-11-23-en (excerpt follows): WHOIS Output Fields Domain Record: A WHOIS query that results in domain information will return the following fields from the Domain object and the associated data from host and contact objects. This set of data is also referred to as the Domain Record. Domain ID Domain Name Domain Status Registry Operating Registrar (IANA-assigned identifier) Registrant, Administrative, Technical and Billing Contact Information including: [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://www.msk.com/> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU. From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:12 AM To: Anderson, Marc; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Theo, I’ll be sure to add to the agenda. For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com>> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, "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: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. • Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? • At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. • Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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 Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet"
+ Steve Does that apply for Verisign though? Theo On 27-9-2016 17:35, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
Just a note that at least a few registries have contractual obligations to display billing contact data. E.g., .mobi, https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/mobi-appendixs-2005-11-23-en (excerpt follows):
*WHOIS Output Fields*
*Domain Record:*
A WHOIS query that results in domain information will return the following fields from the Domain object and the associated data from host and contact objects. This set of data is also referred to as the Domain Record.
Domain ID Domain Name Domain Status Registry Operating Registrar (IANA-assigned identifier) Registrant, Administrative, Technical and Billing Contact Information including:
*image001*
*Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
T: 202.355.7902 |met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>**
*Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
*_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
*From:*gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Dennis Chang *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:12 AM *To:* Anderson, Marc; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4
Theo,
I’ll be sure to add to the agenda.
For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
*From: *"Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com <mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM *To: *Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org <mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, "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: *RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4
Dennis,
Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items.
·Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present?
·At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states:
/The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22)./
I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it.
·Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations.
Thank you,
Marc Anderson
*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 *Dennis Chang *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4
Dear Thick Whois IRT,
Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review.
Three key updates are
1)Adapted the alternate definition of Thick
2)Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition
3)Removed sections referring to RDAP
Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week.
Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on.
—
Kind Regards,
Dennis S. Chang
GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
+1 213 293 7889
Skype: dennisSchang
www.icann.org[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Hi Dennis, Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things. We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list. Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one. But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether. I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason. Theo On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote:
Theo,
I’ll be sure to add to the agenda.
For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
*From: *"Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> *Date: *Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM *To: *Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4
Dennis,
Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items.
·Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present?
·At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states:
/The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22)./
I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it.
·Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations.
Thank you,
Marc Anderson
*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 *Dennis Chang *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4
Dear Thick Whois IRT,
Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review.
Three key updates are
1)Adapted the alternate definition of Thick
2)Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition
3)Removed sections referring to RDAP
Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week.
Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on.
—
Kind Regards,
Dennis S. Chang
GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
+1 213 293 7889
Skype: dennisSchang
www.icann.org[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
I was wondering why Dennis was putting things for me on the agenda and asking me to suggest language :) Anyways, perhaps Marc and the rest of the IRT can agree with what I just sent and either discuss it or wait till folks I mentioned weigh in before we go discuss 2.2? Theo On 27-9-2016 19:13, theo geurts wrote:
Hi Dennis, Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things.
We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list. Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one.
But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether.
I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason.
Theo
On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote:
Theo,
I’ll be sure to add to the agenda.
For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well.
Thanks
Dennis Chang
*From: *"Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> *Date: *Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM *To: *Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4
Dennis,
Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items.
·Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present?
·At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states:
/The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22)./
I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it.
·Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations.
Thank you,
Marc Anderson
*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 *Dennis Chang *Sent:* Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4
Dear Thick Whois IRT,
Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review.
Three key updates are
1)Adapted the alternate definition of Thick
2)Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition
3)Removed sections referring to RDAP
Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week.
Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on.
—
Kind Regards,
Dennis S. Chang
GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
+1 213 293 7889
Skype: dennisSchang
www.icann.org[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet"
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
I should have addressed my email to Marc, not Theo Either way, I hope to see you soon in the AC Room. Thanks Dennis Chang From: theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:20 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 I was wondering why Dennis was putting things for me on the agenda and asking me to suggest language :) Anyways, perhaps Marc and the rest of the IRT can agree with what I just sent and either discuss it or wait till folks I mentioned weigh in before we go discuss 2.2? Theo On 27-9-2016 19:13, theo geurts wrote: Hi Dennis, Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things. We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list. Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one. But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether. I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason. Theo On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote: Theo, I’ll be sure to add to the agenda. For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com><mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org><mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>, "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: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. · Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? · At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. · Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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 Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet" _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Hi Theo, Yes this was what I brought up, essentially I suggested that the data escrow that we provide to IM could be used for the population of this date as it covers everything needed. I am not suggesting we give ICANN or Verisign permission to gain this from IM, but, we as registrars if we elect too as an option provide a version to Verisign with only com/net in it. Let me give a scenario why we need a alternative : Small registrar may not have the technical ability in house to implement batch pool EPP services (they simply may not use it) and thus in this case, they do have to provide IM with the data escrow - they could simply have one of their staff open the csv file in excel, filter it for the TLDs required, and then save it. The file is standardised (well that's a moot point as neither ICANN stand up to their RDE spec of 2007, and IM point us back to the document - but thats a whole other story with ICANN Compliance) so from Verisigns point of view - it should be a simple import. Lets also add to the above, you can guarantee that a lot of registrars may leave this to the last minute, so, providing a one of file and allowing Verisign to import it is way simpler. Lastly, if some large registrars do wait until the last minute to start the EPP upload, and Verisign runs out of resources and cannot cope (not saying that they will but you have to think of the worst case scenario) who is to blame on the expected end date when the report is created showing X, Y and Z registrars have not completed their uploads and it is shown its down to resources at Verisign ? Kind regards, Chris From: "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, 27 September, 2016 18:13:51 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Dennis, Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things. We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list. Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one. But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether. I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason. Theo On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote: Theo, I’ll be sure to add to the agenda. For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> , "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. · Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? · At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. · Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org [icann.org] "One World, One Internet" _______________________________________________ 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
Hey Chris, Earlier the IRT discussed the possibility of using the Registrar data escrow files to facilitate the backfill of data. I don’t remember the specifics (maybe someone else can help with the details), but this option was discarded because the escrow files don’t contain all the required fields to create a contact. I think maybe “auth info” was one of the missing pieces of information. Considering a 2 step process of creating the contacts and then associating those contacts with the relevant domain names it seemed that repurposing the escrow files would create more work for Registrars than it would save. Thank you, Marc From: Chris Pelling [mailto:chris@netearth.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:00 PM To: theo geurts Cc: Dennis Chang; Anderson, Marc; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Theo, Yes this was what I brought up, essentially I suggested that the data escrow that we provide to IM could be used for the population of this date as it covers everything needed. I am not suggesting we give ICANN or Verisign permission to gain this from IM, but, we as registrars if we elect too as an option provide a version to Verisign with only com/net in it. Let me give a scenario why we need a alternative : Small registrar may not have the technical ability in house to implement batch pool EPP services (they simply may not use it) and thus in this case, they do have to provide IM with the data escrow - they could simply have one of their staff open the csv file in excel, filter it for the TLDs required, and then save it. The file is standardised (well that's a moot point as neither ICANN stand up to their RDE spec of 2007, and IM point us back to the document - but thats a whole other story with ICANN Compliance) so from Verisigns point of view - it should be a simple import. Lets also add to the above, you can guarantee that a lot of registrars may leave this to the last minute, so, providing a one of file and allowing Verisign to import it is way simpler. Lastly, if some large registrars do wait until the last minute to start the EPP upload, and Verisign runs out of resources and cannot cope (not saying that they will but you have to think of the worst case scenario) who is to blame on the expected end date when the report is created showing X, Y and Z registrars have not completed their uploads and it is shown its down to resources at Verisign ? Kind regards, Chris ________________________________ From: "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com>>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 27 September, 2016 18:13:51 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Dennis, Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things. We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list. Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one. But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether. I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason. Theo On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote: Theo, I’ll be sure to add to the agenda. For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com><mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org><mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>, "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: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. • Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? • At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. • Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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 Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet" _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Hi Marc, On a plus point we have already had registrars interested in the alternative procedure, on posting to the RrSG, I had 2 registrars reply within minutes. So what we should do then is come up with the required fields , what I do not understand and correct me if I am wrong, you already have the AUTH info as otherwise you would not be able to ACK a transfer request. Certainly when logging into the verisign namestore manager, I can see the EPP Code (transfer secret / auth0info) in front of me. Kind regards, Chris From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> To: "chris" <chris@netearth.net>, "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl> Cc: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2016 14:39:29 Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hey Chris, Earlier the IRT discussed the possibility of using the Registrar data escrow files to facilitate the backfill of data. I don’t remember the specifics (maybe someone else can help with the details), but this option was discarded because the escrow files don’t contain all the required fields to create a contact. I think maybe “auth info” was one of the missing pieces of information. Considering a 2 step process of creating the contacts and then associating those contacts with the relevant domain names it seemed that repurposing the escrow files would create more work for Registrars than it would save. Thank you, Marc From: Chris Pelling [mailto:chris@netearth.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:00 PM To: theo geurts Cc: Dennis Chang; Anderson, Marc; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Theo, Yes this was what I brought up, essentially I suggested that the data escrow that we provide to IM could be used for the population of this date as it covers everything needed. I am not suggesting we give ICANN or Verisign permission to gain this from IM, but, we as registrars if we elect too as an option provide a version to Verisign with only com/net in it. Let me give a scenario why we need a alternative : Small registrar may not have the technical ability in house to implement batch pool EPP services (they simply may not use it) and thus in this case, they do have to provide IM with the data escrow - they could simply have one of their staff open the csv file in excel, filter it for the TLDs required, and then save it. The file is standardised (well that's a moot point as neither ICANN stand up to their RDE spec of 2007, and IM point us back to the document - but thats a whole other story with ICANN Compliance) so from Verisigns point of view - it should be a simple import. Lets also add to the above, you can guarantee that a lot of registrars may leave this to the last minute, so, providing a one of file and allowing Verisign to import it is way simpler. Lastly, if some large registrars do wait until the last minute to start the EPP upload, and Verisign runs out of resources and cannot cope (not saying that they will but you have to think of the worst case scenario) who is to blame on the expected end date when the report is created showing X, Y and Z registrars have not completed their uploads and it is shown its down to resources at Verisign ? Kind regards, Chris From: "theo geurts" < gtheo@xs4all.nl > To: "Dennis Chang" < dennis.chang@icann.org >, "Anderson, Marc" < mcanderson@verisign.com >, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, 27 September, 2016 18:13:51 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Dennis, Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things. We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list. Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one. But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether. I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason. Theo On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote: Theo, I’ll be sure to add to the agenda. For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> , "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. · Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? · At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. · Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org [icann.org] "One World, One Internet" _______________________________________________ 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
I think maybe “auth info” was one of the missing pieces of information.
All Registries whether thick or thin have the authinfo already, it's not needed for "adding contacts" There are 2 main issues with the escrow files - format of the data and it not necessarily being the data you want passed to the registry * the standard for escrow data means it's not obvious/possible/reliable to determine city/state type information when it's compacted into 1 field * if the contact data is to be privacy/proxied, the privacy data is what you want in the registry whois, not the "real" data which is what is in the escrow files Both of those are ultimately solvable though, many of us have successully pulled in escrow data as registrars over the years, and the privacy issue could be coded around easily, but they impacts enough registrars and registrations that I fully understand not going that route Rob
Marc, Is there a possibility that this would be a three step process? 1. Create the contacts 2. Attach the contacts to the domain. 3. Depending on if the registrar is storing the contactIDs associated with the domain, the registrar would need the list of contactIDs created by the registry in order to store the contactIDs in the registrar’s database, in case the contacts are updated at the registrar. Granted some registrars may not store those contactIDs because they may only perform registrations through the web portal. Thanks, Jody Kolker From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Pelling Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:46 AM To: Anderson, Marc Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Marc, On a plus point we have already had registrars interested in the alternative procedure, on posting to the RrSG, I had 2 registrars reply within minutes. So what we should do then is come up with the required fields , what I do not understand and correct me if I am wrong, you already have the AUTH info as otherwise you would not be able to ACK a transfer request. Certainly when logging into the verisign namestore manager, I can see the EPP Code (transfer secret / auth0info) in front of me. Kind regards, Chris ________________________________ From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com>> To: "chris" <chris@netearth.net<mailto:chris@netearth.net>>, "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Cc: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2016 14:39:29 Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hey Chris, Earlier the IRT discussed the possibility of using the Registrar data escrow files to facilitate the backfill of data. I don’t remember the specifics (maybe someone else can help with the details), but this option was discarded because the escrow files don’t contain all the required fields to create a contact. I think maybe “auth info” was one of the missing pieces of information. Considering a 2 step process of creating the contacts and then associating those contacts with the relevant domain names it seemed that repurposing the escrow files would create more work for Registrars than it would save. Thank you, Marc From: Chris Pelling [mailto:chris@netearth.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:00 PM To: theo geurts Cc: Dennis Chang; Anderson, Marc; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Theo, Yes this was what I brought up, essentially I suggested that the data escrow that we provide to IM could be used for the population of this date as it covers everything needed. I am not suggesting we give ICANN or Verisign permission to gain this from IM, but, we as registrars if we elect too as an option provide a version to Verisign with only com/net in it. Let me give a scenario why we need a alternative : Small registrar may not have the technical ability in house to implement batch pool EPP services (they simply may not use it) and thus in this case, they do have to provide IM with the data escrow - they could simply have one of their staff open the csv file in excel, filter it for the TLDs required, and then save it. The file is standardised (well that's a moot point as neither ICANN stand up to their RDE spec of 2007, and IM point us back to the document - but thats a whole other story with ICANN Compliance) so from Verisigns point of view - it should be a simple import. Lets also add to the above, you can guarantee that a lot of registrars may leave this to the last minute, so, providing a one of file and allowing Verisign to import it is way simpler. Lastly, if some large registrars do wait until the last minute to start the EPP upload, and Verisign runs out of resources and cannot cope (not saying that they will but you have to think of the worst case scenario) who is to blame on the expected end date when the report is created showing X, Y and Z registrars have not completed their uploads and it is shown its down to resources at Verisign ? Kind regards, Chris ________________________________ From: "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com>>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 27 September, 2016 18:13:51 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Dennis, Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things. We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list. Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one. But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether. I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason. Theo On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote: Theo, I’ll be sure to add to the agenda. For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com><mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org><mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>, "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: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. • Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? • At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. • Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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 Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet" _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Hey Jody, I had assumed that the Registrar would always know the contactIDs. I agree with your point though, if for any reason the Registrar does not have that data, there would need to be a step 3 to provide that information. Thanks, Marc From: Jody Kolker [mailto:jkolker@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:51 AM To: Chris Pelling; Anderson, Marc Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Marc, Is there a possibility that this would be a three step process? 1. Create the contacts 2. Attach the contacts to the domain. 3. Depending on if the registrar is storing the contactIDs associated with the domain, the registrar would need the list of contactIDs created by the registry in order to store the contactIDs in the registrar’s database, in case the contacts are updated at the registrar. Granted some registrars may not store those contactIDs because they may only perform registrations through the web portal. Thanks, Jody Kolker 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 Chris Pelling Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:46 AM To: Anderson, Marc Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Marc, On a plus point we have already had registrars interested in the alternative procedure, on posting to the RrSG, I had 2 registrars reply within minutes. So what we should do then is come up with the required fields , what I do not understand and correct me if I am wrong, you already have the AUTH info as otherwise you would not be able to ACK a transfer request. Certainly when logging into the verisign namestore manager, I can see the EPP Code (transfer secret / auth0info) in front of me. Kind regards, Chris ________________________________ From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com>> To: "chris" <chris@netearth.net<mailto:chris@netearth.net>>, "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Cc: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2016 14:39:29 Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hey Chris, Earlier the IRT discussed the possibility of using the Registrar data escrow files to facilitate the backfill of data. I don’t remember the specifics (maybe someone else can help with the details), but this option was discarded because the escrow files don’t contain all the required fields to create a contact. I think maybe “auth info” was one of the missing pieces of information. Considering a 2 step process of creating the contacts and then associating those contacts with the relevant domain names it seemed that repurposing the escrow files would create more work for Registrars than it would save. Thank you, Marc From: Chris Pelling [mailto:chris@netearth.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:00 PM To: theo geurts Cc: Dennis Chang; Anderson, Marc; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Theo, Yes this was what I brought up, essentially I suggested that the data escrow that we provide to IM could be used for the population of this date as it covers everything needed. I am not suggesting we give ICANN or Verisign permission to gain this from IM, but, we as registrars if we elect too as an option provide a version to Verisign with only com/net in it. Let me give a scenario why we need a alternative : Small registrar may not have the technical ability in house to implement batch pool EPP services (they simply may not use it) and thus in this case, they do have to provide IM with the data escrow - they could simply have one of their staff open the csv file in excel, filter it for the TLDs required, and then save it. The file is standardised (well that's a moot point as neither ICANN stand up to their RDE spec of 2007, and IM point us back to the document - but thats a whole other story with ICANN Compliance) so from Verisigns point of view - it should be a simple import. Lets also add to the above, you can guarantee that a lot of registrars may leave this to the last minute, so, providing a one of file and allowing Verisign to import it is way simpler. Lastly, if some large registrars do wait until the last minute to start the EPP upload, and Verisign runs out of resources and cannot cope (not saying that they will but you have to think of the worst case scenario) who is to blame on the expected end date when the report is created showing X, Y and Z registrars have not completed their uploads and it is shown its down to resources at Verisign ? Kind regards, Chris ________________________________ From: "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>>, "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com>>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 27 September, 2016 18:13:51 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Hi Dennis, Maybe we are going the wrong way here and we mixing things. We discussed the alternative because it came up during a discussion within the RrSG. And I think Jennifer Gore mentioned this on the list. Now I think, but Chris Pelling can most likely bring some clarity here on why he proposed to use the RDE data for the migration, and I think but I am not sure, his reasoning was to speed things up. But I will let Chris weigh in on that one. But if that is the case and combine the fact that we also said not to use the RDE deposit approach as an alternative bulk method then we might want to backtrack on this alternative approach altogether. I cannot come up with a good argument that justifies an alternative bulk method while the Registrar in question has to make the EPP modifications anyways (May 2018). But perhaps Jennifer can weigh in on this? I have a feeling that we are mixing a few conversations and emails into requirements for no good reason. Theo On 27-9-2016 17:12, Dennis Chang wrote: Theo, I’ll be sure to add to the agenda. For Section 2.2, if you could provide suggested language before the meeting, I can have it for the IRT to review as well. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com><mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org><mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>, "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: RE: Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dennis, Thank you for sending out this updated version. In preparation for our upcoming call I have a couple items. • Section 2.2 pertains to Registries providing an (alternative) bulk method for the backfill of contact data. I’d like to propose an update to the language in this section. Could I have some time during the meeting to present? • At the last meeting I brought up the billing contact and agreed to propose clarifying language. I suggest adding a section 2.11 that states: The “Billing” contact is optional. Registry Policy may define if it is required, optional or not supported. If supported the Billing contact information must be displayed as described in the “Advisory: Clarifications to the Registry Agreement, and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding applicable Registration Data Directory Service (Whois) Specifications” (section 22). I’d also like to get the IRT’s thoughts on the Billing contact in general. My sense is that no one is really concerned if the billing contact is present or not and that in order to facilitate the transition from thin to thick it would be easiest to not include it. • Finally, can we add an agenda item to talk about Escrow of contact data? It was a topic considered during the PDP deliberations but we haven’t touched on it as part of the IRT deliberations. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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 Dennis Chang Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:22 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Whois Transition Policy draft v4 Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached are the Transition Policy drafts from our review this week. A clean and redlined provided for your further review. Three key updates are 1) Adapted the alternate definition of Thick 2) Incorporated the requirements to the body of policy per sections rather than the definition 3) Removed sections referring to RDAP Please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible so that we may continue to discuss on line and prepare better for the team meeting next week. Agenda for the next meeting will be provided to you in a separate email which you may also comment on. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMGaQ&c...> "One World, One Internet" _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
participants (7)
-
Anderson, Marc -
Chris Pelling -
Dennis Chang -
Jody Kolker -
Metalitz, Steven -
Rob Golding -
theo geurts