Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules
Dear IRT Members, At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules. Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry. As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I'm calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration. I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don't allow it at all. I don't believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT. Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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/> [Verisign(tm)]
Good Afternoon, Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful. I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct? Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Dear IRT Members, At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules. Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry. As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I'm calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration. I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don't allow it at all. I don't believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT. Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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/> [Verisign(tm)]
Hi Roger, I believe a full verifiable address and valid phone number with correct format are definitely required in thick whois. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger D Carney To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validationrules Good Afternoon, Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful. I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct? Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Dear IRT Members, At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules. Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry. As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I'm calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration. I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don't allow it at all. I don't believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT. Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts. Thank you, Marc Anderson Marc Anderson Product Manager mcanderson@verisign.com m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
I respectfully disagree Joyce. What tool or standard will be provided or used for all registrars to before verification of 'full address'. As for phone number format, standardization is currently required under the 2013 RAA, however 'validation' of phone number would also require a 3rd party tool to perform such action that could support all domestic and international phone number formats. Jennifer On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Joyce Lin <jlin@007names.com<mailto:jlin@007names.com>> wrote: Hi Roger, I believe a full verifiable address and valid phone number with correct format are definitely required in thick whois. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger D Carney<mailto:rcarney@godaddy.com> To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validationrules Good Afternoon, Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful. I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct? Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Dear IRT Members, At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules. Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry. As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I’m calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration. I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don’t allow it at all. I don’t believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT. Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts. Thank you, Marc Anderson <image001.gif> 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/> <image003.gif> ________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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
Simply use the ITU E.164 format, scripting to that format is pretty easy. That being said, we have no idea how if this is true for all Registrars. For example I remember some ccTLD registrars who had to hire a programmer/developer for things like scripting. It is that this thing is already in motion, it would have been a prefect subject for the DMPM Pilot (not sure what the status is on the DMPM recommendations), to get the facts, rather then guessing, as this could turn out to be a rather complex exercise all in all. Best regards, Theo Geurts Jennifer Gore Standiford schreef op 2016-02-04 04:08 AM:
I respectfully disagree Joyce. What tool or standard will be provided or used for all registrars to before verification of 'full address'. As for phone number format, standardization is currently required under the 2013 RAA, however 'validation' of phone number would also require a 3rd party tool to perform such action that could support all domestic and international phone number formats.
Jennifer
On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Joyce Lin <jlin@007names.com> wrote:
* * Hi Roger,
I believe a full verifiable address and valid phone number with correct format are definitely required in thick whois.
Joyce
----- Original Message -----
FROM: Roger D Carney TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org SENT: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validationrules
Good Afternoon,
Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful.
I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct?
Thanks
Roger
FROM: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Anderson, Marc SENT: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org SUBJECT: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules
Dear IRT Members,
At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules.
Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry.
As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I’m calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration.
I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don’t allow it at all. I don’t believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT.
Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts.
Thank you,
Marc Anderson
<image001.gif>
MARC ANDERSON Product Manager mcanderson@verisign.com
m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com [1]
<image003.gif>
-------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
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
I simply responded to Roger's question regarding the address 'meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct?' I do not think you can have a blank address field, whether the address is verifiable is another issue. And I do not know if any registrar would fully verify a RNH address before they approve a new domain registration. We have dealt with a domain's inaccurate whois complaint from ICANN a few months ago, and the RNH is located in the African Continent. At the end we had to verify the RNH's address and provided the result to ICANN as they had requested below - 5. If any of the Whois data was updated during the course of your registrar's investigation or if the RNH has changed, provide the methods and results of your registrar's validation of format of the Whois data. Examples of standard formats include RFC 5322 for email addresses, ITU-T E.164 notation for the format of international telephone numbers and for the format of postal addresses the UPU Postal addressing format templates, the S42 address templates (as they may be updated) or other standard formats for the applicable territory. For more details please refer to the Whois Accuracy Program Specification. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Jennifer Gore Standiford To: Joyce Lin Cc: Roger D Carney ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contactvalidationrules I respectfully disagree Joyce. What tool or standard will be provided or used for all registrars to before verification of 'full address'. As for phone number format, standardization is currently required under the 2013 RAA, however 'validation' of phone number would also require a 3rd party tool to perform such action that could support all domestic and international phone number formats. Jennifer On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Joyce Lin <jlin@007names.com> wrote: Hi Roger, I believe a full verifiable address and valid phone number with correct format are definitely required in thick whois. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Roger D Carney To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validationrules Good Afternoon, Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful. I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct? Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Dear IRT Members, At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules. Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry. As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I’m calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration. I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don’t allow it at all. I don’t believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT. Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts. Thank you, Marc Anderson <image001.gif> Marc Anderson Product Manager mcanderson@verisign.com m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com <!--[if !vml]--><image003.gif><!--[endif]--> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 Roger, You raised a very good point on the required fields. You missed out on a fairly lively discussion on this topic during today's IRT meeting. You are correct in that this document reflects what is listed in RFC 5733 which defines EPP for contacts. Per that RFC the address and phone fields are not required so it would be possible for Registrars to create contacts without passing that data to the Registry. Krista put this much more eloquently then I will be able to here, but this does not reflect or impact what Registrars are required to collect from Registrants or any of their complete and accurate requirements. It is simply the field validation rules that I am proposing we implement. I think it's good that Fabien added this to the agenda for today's meeting. Clearly from the call there are differing opinions on if these fields (specifically Address 1 and email) should be required by the Registry. I think this is exactly the type of item the IRT should be discussing and providing advice to ICANN staff on. If the consensus of the IRT is that Registries should make those fields mandatory then that is the advice we should provide to ICANN staff, who are ultimately responsible for drafting the consensus policy language. My request is that the consensus policy language makes it clear one way or another. For example, should it be left to Registry policy (as the RFC seems to suggest), should those fields be optional, or should those fields be mandatory. Thank you, Marc From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Good Afternoon, Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful. I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct? Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Dear IRT Members, At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules. Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry. As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I'm calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration. I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don't allow it at all. I don't believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT. Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts. Thank you, Marc Anderson 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/> [Verisign(tm)]
If the address, phone are not required, then ICANN's whois accuracy compliance programs need to be modified, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#whoi... 3.3 Public Access to Data on Registered Names. During the Term of this Agreement: 3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and, with respect to any ?gTLD? operating a "thin" registry, a port 43 Whois service (each accessible via both IPv4 and IPv6) providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by Registrar in any ?gTLD?. Until otherwise specified by a ?Consensus? Policy, such data shall consist of the following elements as contained in Registrar's database: 3.3.1.1 The name of the Registered Name; 3.3.1.2 The names of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name; 3.3.1.3 The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's website); 3.3.1.4 The original creation date of the registration; 3.3.1.5 The expiration date of the registration; 3.3.1.6 The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder; 3.3.1.7 The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the Registered Name; and 3.3.1.8 The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the Registered Name. Am I misunderstanding the issue? Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Anderson, Marc To: Roger D Carney ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contactvalidation rules Hey Roger, You raised a very good point on the required fields. You missed out on a fairly lively discussion on this topic during today's IRT meeting. You are correct in that this document reflects what is listed in RFC 5733 which defines EPP for contacts. Per that RFC the address and phone fields are not required so it would be possible for Registrars to create contacts without passing that data to the Registry. Krista put this much more eloquently then I will be able to here, but this does not reflect or impact what Registrars are required to collect from Registrants or any of their complete and accurate requirements. It is simply the field validation rules that I am proposing we implement. I think it's good that Fabien added this to the agenda for today's meeting. Clearly from the call there are differing opinions on if these fields (specifically Address 1 and email) should be required by the Registry. I think this is exactly the type of item the IRT should be discussing and providing advice to ICANN staff on. If the consensus of the IRT is that Registries should make those fields mandatory then that is the advice we should provide to ICANN staff, who are ultimately responsible for drafting the consensus policy language. My request is that the consensus policy language makes it clear one way or another. For example, should it be left to Registry policy (as the RFC seems to suggest), should those fields be optional, or should those fields be mandatory. Thank you, Marc From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Good Afternoon, Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful. I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct? Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules Dear IRT Members, At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules. Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry. As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I'm calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration. I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don't allow it at all. I don't believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT. Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts. Thank you, Marc Anderson Marc Anderson Product Manager mcanderson@verisign.com m: 571.521.9943 t: 703.948.3404 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190 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 Joyce, You are absolutely correct when it comes to the Registrar requirements (nailed it 100% correctly) However I do not think we as IRT members are within scope to make these requirements mandatory for this WHOIS migration, and if we are, we might want to re-consider if we really want to go there. We are going to open up a can of worms there the size of the empire state building in my opinion. We should follow the RFC and migrate what we got if we got it, even if they are optional, after all these are our requirements. If we need to go hunt down Registrar required data first, that is optional in the RFC prior to the migration, then I predict we will not bring this migration to a close within the next 6-10 years. We are talking data that is older then ICANN and pre EPP, so we can expect some missing fields here and there, but it has not been a problem ever, so why make it a requirement ? If the migrated data has some missing fields that you require for a transfer then simply contact the Registrar and remind them of the requirements you mentioned in your email. We are all used to that, or tell them they need to have a WHOIS server, so business as usual in my opinion. The sooner we get this done, the less delay we will face. Have a good weekend, or what's left of it ;) Theo Geurts On 12-2-2016 18:16, Joyce Lin wrote:
If the address, phone are not required, then ICANN's whois accuracy compliance programs need to be modified, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#whoi...
3.3 _Public Access to Data on Registered Names_. During the Term of this Agreement:
3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and, with respect to any gTLD operating a "thin" registry, a port 43 Whois service (each accessible via both IPv4 and IPv6) providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by Registrar in any gTLD. Until otherwise specified by a Consensus Policy, such data shall consist of the following elements as contained in Registrar's database:
3.3.1.1 The name of the Registered Name;
3.3.1.2 The names of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name;
3.3.1.3 The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's website);
3.3.1.4 The original creation date of the registration;
3.3.1.5 The expiration date of the registration;
3.3.1.6 The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder;
3.3.1.7 The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the Registered Name; and
3.3.1.8 The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the Registered Name.
Am I misunderstanding the issue? Joyce ----- Original Message -----
*From:* Anderson, Marc <mailto:mcanderson@verisign.com> *To:* Roger D Carney <mailto:rcarney@godaddy.com> ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:09 PM *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contactvalidation rules
Hey Roger,
You raised a very good point on the required fields. You missed out on a fairly lively discussion on this topic during today’s IRT meeting.
You are correct in that this document reflects what is listed in RFC 5733 which defines EPP for contacts. Per that RFC the address and phone fields are not required so it would be possible for Registrars to create contacts without passing that data to the Registry.
Krista put this much more eloquently then I will be able to here, but this does not reflect or impact what Registrars are required to collect from Registrants or any of their complete and accurate requirements. It is simply the field validation rules that I am proposing we implement.
I think it’s good that Fabien added this to the agenda for today’s meeting. Clearly from the call there are differing opinions on if these fields (specifically Address 1 and email) should be required by the Registry. I think this is exactly the type of item the IRT should be discussing and providing advice to ICANN staff on.
If the consensus of the IRT is that Registries should make those fields mandatory then that is the advice we should provide to ICANN staff, who are ultimately responsible for drafting the consensus policy language. My request is that the consensus policy language makes it clear one way or another. For example, should it be left to Registry policy (as the RFC seems to suggest), should those fields be optional, or should those fields be mandatory.
Thank you,
Marc
*From:*gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Roger D Carney *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:48 PM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules
Good Afternoon,
Thanks Marc, this will be very helpful.
I just want to confirm that I am reading this information correctly. As I read this it appears that only Contact ID, Postal info type, Name, City, Country, Email and Auth Info (only those required by RFC 5733) are required to create a contact, meaning that I can have a mostly blank address block and blank phone, is that correct?
Thanks
Roger
*From:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Anderson, Marc *Sent:* Monday, February 01, 2016 2:54 PM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick WhoIs IRT - contact validation rules
Dear IRT Members,
At the last IRT meeting we discussed that in order for Registrars to properly assess the amount of work involved in the backfill of thick data for existing Registrations, it is necessary to know the fields required and their validation rules.
Along with providing that information, I want to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the difference between a thin Registry and a thick Registry. A thin domain registration does not have any contacts associated with it. Currently, a Registrar cannot even create contacts for the .com or .net Registry.
As part of a transition to thick, the com/net registry would start supporting contacts by allowing Registrars to add, modify and delete contacts. A thick domain registration MUST have a contact ID for each contact type (Registrant, Admin, Technical and Billing). The same contact can be re-used across domains and/or contact types. For example, if a Registrant were to register two domains in a thick gTLD via the same Registrar, that Registrar could create one contact and associate that with both domain registrations or could create two separate contacts, one for each domain. Either is fine, but I’m calling it out because it will have an impact on the effort required by Registrars to backfill thick data for existing registrations. There are no other differences between a thin and a thick registration.
I recognize that the Billing contact is not universally required by all thick Registries. Some (including Verisign) require it; some allow it as an optional field and some don’t allow it at all. I don’t believe this was addressed by the Thick WhoIs PDP working group so it may be worth consideration by the IRT.
Attached please find a document containing the contact validation rules that Verisign would implement to assist Registrars in assessing impacts.
Thank you,
Marc Anderson
Verisign
*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/>
Verisign™
------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
participants (6)
-
Anderson, Marc -
gtheo -
Jennifer Gore Standiford -
Joyce Lin -
Roger D Carney -
theo geurts