I believe there are many technical alternatives available for us to meet the policy. The need for a standards-track RFC is an open question. — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgould@Verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 2/27/19, 8:28 AM, "gtld-tech on behalf of Gavin Brown" <gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org on behalf of gavin.brown@centralnic.com> wrote: On 27/02/2019 10:10, Mario Loffredo wrote: > Hi Gavin, > > Il 27/02/2019 10:40, Gavin Brown ha scritto: >> >> [snip] >> >> Any thoughts? > > Make RFC5733 <addr> element optional. That would require a standards-track RFC, and since it would result in an XML schema update, probably a namespace version update as well (i.e. urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 => urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 => urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.1). G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ +44.7548243029 CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.