Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Latest IRT Contact Validation rules
Dear Marc, The version of the contact validation rules you shared corresponds to my understanding of what the IRT is proposing. According to our discussion earlier today, please find attached some background information which can serve to provide a bit of context when sharing the contact validation rules. Please note that I am suggesting the date of 20 June 2016 as deadline for Stakeholder Groups input so that that IRT can start considering it in our meeting to be held on Tuesday 21 June. Feel to edit and use the attached document in the format you find most appropriate. Best Regards -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:12 PM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Latest IRT Contact Validation rules Fabien, At today¹s IRT meeting we discussed the action item of providing the RySG and RrSG groups copies of the contact validation rules the IRT has defined and giving them the opportunity to provide feedback. I agreed to coordinate that with the RySG. I¹ve attached the latest version of the contact validation rules that I have, but I want to confirm that this is the latest version that I should be sharing with the RySG. Thank you, Marc Marc Anderson Product Manager mcanderson@verisign.com <mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com> m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com <http://www.verisigninc.com/>
Greetings Team, On the RrSG list, we had a good discussion about the Contact Validation rules. Though the deadline has not passed it seems the discussion faded out and as such I am already posting some observations from my side. There might be additions to my observations as the RrSG will briefly touch upon this subject on the policy call next Monday. So we might get some extra info there. -Contact validation rules. I did not observe any objection against this, so this is not a show stopper. -EPP EPP was also discussed. Strong support, good to see that re-confirmed at this stage. -RDE or Alternative Several Registrars thought RDE deposits would tackle the issue of missing data and it could be a good alternative compared to migrating through EPP. As one Registrar noted, we strip the RDE deposit from all data except .com and .net we hand over the file to Verisign in whatever format and they can put it in their system. Some Registrars expect this approach to involve less dev time and minimize operational impact. So we might want to circle back on this one. To be clear here, this approach would involve the RDE deposits from the Registrars, not the escrow provider. Best regards, Theo Geurts Fabien Betremieux schreef op 2016-06-08 02:00 AM:
Dear Marc,
The version of the contact validation rules you shared corresponds to my understanding of what the IRT is proposing.
According to our discussion earlier today, please find attached some background information which can serve to provide a bit of context when sharing the contact validation rules. Please note that I am suggesting the date of 20 June 2016 as deadline for Stakeholder Groups input so that that IRT can start considering it in our meeting to be held on Tuesday 21 June.
Feel to edit and use the attached document in the format you find most appropriate.
Best Regards
-- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN
From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:12 PM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Latest IRT Contact Validation rules
Fabien,
At today's IRT meeting we discussed the action item of providing the RySG and RrSG groups copies of the contact validation rules the IRT has defined and giving them the opportunity to provide feedback. I agreed to coordinate that with the RySG. I've attached the latest version of the contact validation rules that I have, but I want to confirm that this is the latest version that I should be sharing with the RySG.
Thank you,
Marc
MARC ANDERSON Product Manager mcanderson@verisign.com
m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.verisigninc.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Hi all, The RDE deposit spec is located here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf Escrow records shall be compiled into a single (uncompressed) CSV text file or multiple (uncompressed) text files approximately 1 gigabyte or one million rows in size, in compliance with RFC 4180 . In accordance with RFC 4180, the character encoding for the CSV file should be US-ASCII, although UTF-8 is also permissible. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180 I do not see the EPP code/auth code mentioned as a requirement so that makes things more complex, at least more complex then EPP I assume. Best regards, Theo Geurts
To correct myself here, the registry is already in possession of the EPP Code. Theo theo geurts schreef op 2016-06-14 09:24 PM:
Hi all,
The RDE deposit spec is located here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf
Escrow records shall be compiled into a single (uncompressed) CSV text file or multiple (uncompressed) text files approximately 1 gigabyte or one million rows in size, in compliance with RFC 4180 . In accordance with RFC 4180, the character encoding for the CSV file should be US-ASCII, although UTF-8 is also permissible. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180
I do not see the EPP code/auth code mentioned as a requirement so that makes things more complex, at least more complex then EPP I assume.
Best regards,
Theo Geurts _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Thank you Theo, I'll take a look at this. Thanks, Marc From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of theo geurts Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:25 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] RDE Deposit SPEC Hi all, The RDE deposit spec is located here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf Escrow records shall be compiled into a single (uncompressed) CSV text file or multiple (uncompressed) text files approximately 1 gigabyte or one million rows in size, in compliance with RFC 4180 . In accordance with RFC 4180, the character encoding for the CSV file should be US-ASCII, although UTF-8 is also permissible. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180 I do not see the EPP code/auth code mentioned as a requirement so that makes things more complex, at least more complex then EPP I assume. Best regards, Theo Geurts
Hi Marc, I would not trust anything in that document at this time. ICANN are stating on one hand that privacy information should be included in a deposit as well as underlying information, yet that document states otherwise. Sorry Theo, I should have replied to this yesterday - but got lost with time. Kind regards, Chris From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> To: "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, 15 June, 2016 15:20:07 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] RDE Deposit SPEC Thank you Theo, I’ll take a look at this. Thanks, Marc From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of theo geurts Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:25 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] RDE Deposit SPEC Hi all, The RDE deposit spec is located here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf Escrow records shall be compiled into a single (uncompressed) CSV text file or multiple (uncompressed) text files approximately 1 gigabyte or one million rows in size, in compliance with RFC 4180 . In accordance with RFC 4180, the character encoding for the CSV file should be US-ASCII, although UTF-8 is also permissible. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180 I do not see the EPP code/auth code mentioned as a requirement so that makes things more complex, at least more complex then EPP I assume. Best regards, Theo Geurts _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
Hi Chris, Yes, I thought that is still under discussion with compliance right? Or I am mistaken? @Marc, while I was googling for the exact format I came upon this piece: http://www.ironmountain.com/Knowledge-Center/Reference-Library/View-by-Docum... * *gTLDs*: As part of its Registry Agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), each gTLD Registry Operator must comply with provisions contained within a Registry Data Escrow Agreement. That agreement requires gTLD Registry Operators to transfer registry data for their TLD on a daily basis to a reputable escrow agent to be held in escrow. ICANN must be named as a third-party beneficiary under each such escrow agreement. Escrowing registry data helps ensure continuity of service for the gTLD in the event of a natural disaster, a technical failure of a registry, or a security breach within the Domain Name System (DNS). Does this apply for Verisign once they moved over to the Thick Registry model? Just making sure we do not get blind sided during the comment period regarding contractual obligations and the amount of data required for those deposits. Thanks, Theo On 15-6-2016 16:49, Chris Pelling wrote:
Hi Marc,
I would not trust anything in that document at this time. ICANN are stating on one hand that privacy information should be included in a deposit as well as underlying information, yet that document states otherwise.
Sorry Theo, I should have replied to this yesterday - but got lost with time.
Kind regards,
Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> *To: *"theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org *Sent: *Wednesday, 15 June, 2016 15:20:07 *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] RDE Deposit SPEC
Thank you Theo, I’ll take a look at this.
Thanks,
Marc
*From:*gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *theo geurts *Sent:* Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:25 PM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] RDE Deposit SPEC
Hi all,
The RDE deposit spec is located here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rde-specs-09nov07-en.pdf
Escrow records shall be compiled into a single (uncompressed) CSV text file or multiple (uncompressed) text files approximately 1 gigabyte or one million rows in size, in compliance with RFC 4180 . In accordance with RFC 4180, the character encoding for the CSV file should be US-ASCII, although UTF-8 is also permissible. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4180
I do not see the EPP code/auth code mentioned as a requirement so that makes things more complex, at least more complex then EPP I assume.
Best regards,
Theo Geurts
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
participants (5)
-
Anderson, Marc -
Chris Pelling -
Fabien Betremieux -
gtheo -
theo geurts