Hey, Michele.  You mean registrars must VERIFY phone or email.   The RAA says that registrars must VALIDATE presence of data in the street field, and VALIDATE that postal addresses are in a proper format for the applicable country, and VALIDATE that all postal address fields are consistent across fields (for example: street exists in city).

 

I’m using the terms as per the RAA WHOIS Accuracy Program Spec.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight [mailto:michele@blacknight.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 11:18 AM
To: Greg Aaron
Cc: Gould, James; Gustavo Lozano; gtld-tech@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91

 

Greg

Registrars do not have to validate street

It's phone OR email

Regards

Michele

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Hosting & Domains

http://www.blacknight.host/

http://www.mneylon.social


On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:09, Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com> wrote:

Question #8: It is permissible for the registry contracts or the RAA to specify fields that are mandatory above and beyond those in the EPP specification.  The EPP spec is a baseline as far as data fields, and allows registries (or in this case ICANN) to have policy authority and make fields such as Street #1 mandatory.  The 2013 RAA requires that registrars collect, validate, and provision street and phone info … so I don’t see how there’s any open question for discussion here.   Besides, I can’t see how ICANN could ever allowed registrations that do not include a street address or phone number – it would make WHOIS accuracy efforts impossible.  

 

Question #9 might be addressed in the registry contract.  Does Spec 4 paragraph 1.3 allow the association of two Admin contacts to one domain,  for example?   

 

Question #10: go back to the Applicant Guidebook Question 26, and also look at contract Spec 4 paragraph 1.10.    It is the Searchable WHOIS service that allows wildcarding.  The registry contract says that registries are not required to offer searchable WHOIS; those who want to can offer it.    The contract also says that if it is offered, Searchable WHOIS must be provided on the Web-based WHOIS service ONLY, not on port 43 (see Spec 3 paragraph 1.10.1).   If ICANN is stating that port 43 output must return only one record at a time, that seems to be in keeping with the contract and is an FYI clarification, not a new requirement.

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:49 AM
To: Gustavo Lozano
Cc: gtld-tech@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91

 

> Old - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 11/25/2014 at 8:49:12 AM

Gustavo,

 

Below are the notes that I took from the meeting.  Hopefully others have additional notes to add or update to these.    

  1. Gustavo started the meeting by defining the purpose of the WHOIS Clarifications in clarifying items in Specification 4 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), based on questions posted to ICANN.  The goal was to not create new requirements. 
  2. Gustavo described changes between Version 1 and 2 of the WHOIS Clarifications.  
  3. Gustavo stated that new fields require the use of an RSEP.   
  4. The new target date for enforcing the WHOIS Clarifications is March 31, 2015 instead of February 12, 2015.  ICANN asked whether there is a more reasonable date and the feedback was “as late as possible”.  
    1. There was the recommendation to enable registries to test the PDT testing validation ahead of enforcing it.  
  1. Question - Can we wait for RDAP?  RDAP will take time and we cannot wait.
  2. Question - Why return non-existent fields using a key and empty value?  
    1. To stay in line with Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement
    2. It was brought up that there is a mix of including non-existent fields and also support for optional fields.  
    3. Excluding non-existent fields could also support Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement, since Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement did not include any empty fields.  
    4. Action Item - ICANN to bring the feedback back for internal discussion and provide a response to the gtld-tech list. 
  1. Question - Why is the contact name optional, since it’s required in EPP?
    1. ICANN believed that it was either name or organization, but that is not the case.  
    2. Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address.  The recommendation is update it to “Registrant/Admin/Tech[/Billing] Name and Organization - Name is required and Organization is optional"
  1. Question - Why is the contact phone and contact street required?  
    1. Contact phone and street is a required field in the RAA.  
    2. Contact phone and street is not required in EPP and is not required for the registries, so therefore it should not be required in the Registry WHOIS.  Cascading a Registrar requirement in the RAA that is not a Registry or EPP requirement through to a Registry WHOIS requirement must not be done.
    3. Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address.
  1. Question - How to handle multiple contacts of the same type (Admin, Tech, Billing)
    1. Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement only supports a single contact per type, so the Registry must select only one to display.  
  1. Question - Why include the requirement that WHOIS queries for domain name data MUST return only one record per WHOIS query?  
    1. Multiple registries support wildcard queries in WHOIS, where if more than one object (domain or host) matches the query name ( with or without TLD ), a list of matching names is returned instead of a single record.  This is a useful feature that would need to be removed based on the Clarifications requirement.  As earlier stated, the goal of the Clarifications was to not create new requirements.  
    2. Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address.  

Can ICANN respond with a status and update on the action items?  

 

Thanks,

 

—

 

JG


<image001.png>

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com

 

On Nov 14, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org> wrote:




Hello Colleagues,

 

Attached the slides that I used during this meeting.

 

Please note that some of the clarifications / updates presented in the slides may change based on the feedback obtained during the meeting.

 

Regards,

Gustavo

 

From: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2014 at 10:07
To: "gtld-tech@icann.org" <gtld-tech@icann.org>
Subject: Re: Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91

 

Hello Colleagues,

 

The room has enough capacity for all of you interested in assisting physically based on the emails that I received.

 

Adobe Connect will be used for remote participation. Please log into https://icann.adobeconnect.com/tech-services at the time of the meeting (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20141113T15&p1=103&p2=1440).

 

The dial-in bridge will not be available, we will use Adobe Connect for audio. If possible, please use a headset for remote participation.

 

Regards,

Gustavo

 

From: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 10:42
To: <gtld-tech@icann.org>
Subject: Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91

 

Hello Colleagues,

 

If you are at the IETF91, an informal meeting to get feedback about the Whois advisory published by ICANN (i.e.  

 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en), will take place at Tapa Tower - Iolani 3 on Thursday (15.00 to 16.30 local time). 

 

Please send me a email if you are planing to assist in order to validate that the capacity of the room is sufficient.

 

Regards,

Gustavo

ICAN

<whois_advisory.pdf>

 

* Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com>
* Issuer: Symantec Corporation - Unverified