Updated Scorecard of Transition Implementation Path Discussions
Dear IRT Members, In advance of our meeting planned later today, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week¹s meeting and over the mailing list since then. We will use the clean version to guide our discussion later today. Thank you for your attention -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Dear IRT Members, In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week¹s meeting and over the mailing list since then. We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard. Thank you for your attention -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Thanks. Fabien, I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with. This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG. Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200 Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration time 24 months. Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything? How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this. Best, Theo Geurts On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote:
Dear IRT Members,
In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week’s meeting and over the mailing list since then.
We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard.
Thank you for your attention -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Dear IRT Members, In advance of our meetings next week during ICANN 56 in Helsinki, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in this week¹s meeting. Please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard. Thank you for your attention -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Dear IRT Members, Please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in our meetings in Helsinki, to be discussed in our meeting today. Thank you for your attention -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Dear IRT Members, Please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week¹s IRT meeting. Also enclosed is a an updated timeline (dated 12 July 2016) reflecting IRT discussions and changes compared to the version discussed in Helsinki (dated 29 June 2016). Please feel free to propose edits to any of these documents. Thank you for your attention -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Thanks, Fabien, As a reminder to us all. We need to discuss what languages are supported contact wise by the Registry. Though I suspect the answer is rather simple, ALL. I suspect most Registrars support their own language and character set for their registrants. Some Registries have some restrictions when it comes to Multibyte support and reports back a message that multibyte characters are not supported. Not really an option in my opinion. Thanks, Theo Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-07-18 05:00 PM:
Dear IRT Members,
Please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week's IRT meeting. Also enclosed is a an updated timeline (dated 12 July 2016) reflecting IRT discussions and changes compared to the version discussed in Helsinki (dated 29 June 2016).
Please feel free to propose edits to any of these documents.
Thank you for your attention
-- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Dear IRT Members, Please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week¹s IRT meeting. We have included the visual of the timeline discussed in our meeting, as well recent discussion over the mailing-list regarding validation rules. New Item: * 3e) Validation Rules - Multibyte support for contact information by registries * 3f) Validation Rules - Length of fields for address * 3g) Validation Rules - IDN Support for email Open items: * 5) How should inter-registrar transfers of registrations be handled if information is incorrect or incomplete? * 6) How should inter-registrar transfers be handled when registrars are at different stages of data migration in the transition from thin to thick? * 7b) Timeline - Need to factor in coordination of 2000+ registrars, including potential non-responsiveness Please feel free to propose edits to any of these documents or input regarding the open items in advance of our meeting. Thank you for your attention Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
Hi Fabien, Can you remove 3e from the discussion list? There is support in the current setup, the other points remain though. Thanks, Theo Geurts On 25-7-2016 14:23, Fabien Betremieux wrote:
Dear IRT Members,
Please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week’s IRT meeting. We have included the visual of the timeline discussed in our meeting, as well recent discussion over the mailing-list regarding validation rules.
New Item:
* 3e)Validation Rules - Multibyte support for contact information by registries * 3f)Validation Rules - Length of fields for address * 3g)Validation Rules - IDN Support for email
Open items:
* 5) How should inter-registrar transfers of registrations be handled if information is incorrect or incomplete? * 6) How should inter-registrar transfers be handled when registrars are at different stages of data migration in the transition from thin to thick? * 7b) Timeline - Need to factor in coordination of 2000+ registrars, including potential non-responsiveness
Please feel free to propose edits to any of these documents or input regarding the open items in advance of our meeting.
Thank you for your attention
Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
One of the Metallica tracks i never liked much. Anyways. Domain transfers with contacts at the registry to a registrar that cannot deal with it. It would create two different sets of contacts, one at the registry, one at the registrar. When the registrant updates the data it would be updated at the registrar level but not at the registry level. This will create issues, or to be more precise, this is going to be a train wreck. FRANCISCO's solution: if a registrar is not yet ready to manage contacts in the registry, one thing they could do if they are the gaining registrar in transfer when they accept the transfer, they immediately remove the contacts from the registry so that you don’t have stale contacts in the registry. Question: if the contact is no longer at the registry, but only at the registrar, are we going to reverse the issues? There is some rather specific language in IRTP C, will this create issues? Our dev team thinks they can implement the above solution, however, we did not discuss the amount of time involved. The solution works if it is allowed at the Registry level. Assuming this is allowed (still, an if) then we do not know how it will affect registrars. Up till now, we assumed this was some simple migration. With the above in mind, not so much in my opinion. To give you guys an example, we used to be a wholesale registrar nowadays we make our money from our registrar gateway platform. So if we gonna make a few changes, it will affect not just us as a registrar but a boatload more. So we have a different architecture than other registrars. This just being an example on how registrars set up their backends, we are not unique. Thanks for reading this. Theo
participants (3)
-
Fabien Betremieux -
gtheo -
theo geurts