The phrase "Registries exist to be authoritative repositories of data" needs to be carved in stone over the entrance to these rds discussion. * Being simple minded, the tasks here are: "what data" and "access under what terms". The complexities around those two tasks are the core work of this rds-wg. * Issues of accuracy are (operationally) a Registrar-Registry issue. They have to be addressed at that level. Registries depend on Registrars for the primary data from domain name registrants. o ICANN and this wg may have views on how issues of accuracy are addressed but that is a supplementary issue, and not the core issue here. ....my two cents here....as a registrant Sam L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 4/5/2017 7:10 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Aaron *Sent:* Tuesday, April 04, 2017 5:18 PM *To:* Michael D. Palage <michael@palage.com>; 'RDS PDP WG' <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposed Definition/Background for Authoritative
Thanks, Mike. A few notes to contribute as people consider “authoritative”:
Registries exist to be authoritative repositories of data; that’s what they are designed to do. (So, for example, two different people can’t register the same domain name, or so a domain won’t resolve to the wrong nameservers.) Domain registries are generally considered authoritative for at least the thin data. (Domain, sponsoring registrar, dates, statuses, nameservers.) The registry creates or is the original recorder of record for most of those fields (domain, sponsoring registrar, dates). And the registry is authoritative for status and nameserver data, using them to enable and control resolution, or to prevent certain actions from taking place in the registry (such as deletions, and registrar-to-registrar transfers).
The Thick WHOIS PDP decided that all gTLD registries should be thick. One reason was to ensure that there won’t be any more disagreements (discrepancies) between what the registrar says the data is and what the registry says it is (and as seen via WHOIS or a successor system). Another reason was to hold contact data in one place reliably, so it could be served from one (authoritative) place; as a consequence registrar port 43 service will eventually go away. In other words, all registries should become authoritative for all the data we see in WHOIS, if they are not already. That was the desired policy and operational outcome.
So the current situation seems to be pretty simple, and is on the path to getting even simpler:
1. If the registry is thick, the registry is authoritative for all data we see in WHOIS today.
*//*
I can’t agree with the conclusion that thick registries are authoritative for all the data they possess. Being the last holder in a chain of custody makes them a **convenient** source of access to certain data elements, but they are not the original, authoritative* (able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable) source. An example:
A registrar creates an agreement with a registrant. That agreement has an expiration date. The registrar pushes this expiration date to the registry for publication in an RDDS. The registry has no direct contact or relationship with the registrant or the agreement between the registrant and the registrar.
In this and similar indirect data collection situations, the registry is just the last holder in the chain of custody. The registrar is the original source of the data, and is thus a more accurate and reliable source of information.
Scott
* I think it’s very important for us to agree on a definition of “authoritative”, and that doesn’t mean that we get to make one up. I’ve included mine (taken from the Oxford English dictionary) here.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius 邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也 ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852