I'll add a second request. Don From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kane, Pat Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:55 PM To: Gustavo Lozano; gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 Gustavo, Will there be a dial in? Pat Patrick Kane Senior Vice President Verisign Naming and Directory Services PKane@Verisign.com<mailto:PKane@Verisign.com> t: 703.948.3349 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://www.verisigninc.com/> The Manifesto of Done - The point of being done is not to finish, but to get other things done. [Description: Verisign(tm)] From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:43 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: [gtld-tech] 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...), 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

+1 From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:07 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 +1 on the remote access question. On 11/11/14 12:55 PM, Kane, Pat wrote: Gustavo, Will there be a dial in? Pat Patrick Kane Senior Vice President Verisign Naming and Directory Services PKane@Verisign.com<mailto:PKane@Verisign.com> t: 703.948.3349 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://www.verisigninc.com/> The Manifesto of Done - The point of being done is not to finish, but to get other things done. [Description: Verisign(tm)] From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:43 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: [gtld-tech] 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...), 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

+1 Or at the very least a recording/detailed minutes -- Kal Feher From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Levac Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2014 8:39 AM To: Jody Kolker Cc: gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 +1 On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Jody Kolker <jkolker@godaddy.com<mailto:jkolker@godaddy.com>> wrote: +1 From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:07 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 +1 on the remote access question. On 11/11/14 12:55 PM, Kane, Pat wrote: Gustavo, Will there be a dial in? Pat Patrick Kane Senior Vice President Verisign Naming and Directory Services PKane@Verisign.com<mailto:PKane@Verisign.com> t: 703.948.3349<tel:703.948.3349> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://www.verisigninc.com/> The Manifesto of Done - The point of being done is not to finish, but to get other things done. [Description: Verisign™] From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:43 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: [gtld-tech] 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...), 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 Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

At what time and date in UTC? Yours, Mats -- Mats Dufberg DNS Specialist, .SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation) Mobile: +46 73 065 3899 https://www.iis.se/en/<http://www.iis.se/en> Från: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org<mailto:gustavo.lozano@icann.org>> Datum: Wednesday 12 November 2014 00:27 Till: Kal Feher <Kal.Feher@ariservices.com<mailto:Kal.Feher@ariservices.com>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>> Ämne: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 If you want to join remotely: Dial-in number: http://adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 65923097 Regards, Gustavo From: Kal Feher <Kal.Feher@ariservices.com<mailto:Kal.Feher@ariservices.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 13:04 To: "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 +1 Or at the very least a recording/detailed minutes -- Kal Feher From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Levac Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2014 8:39 AM To: Jody Kolker Cc: gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 +1 On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Jody Kolker <jkolker@godaddy.com<mailto:jkolker@godaddy.com>> wrote: +1 From:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:07 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 +1 on the remote access question. On 11/11/14 12:55 PM, Kane, Pat wrote: Gustavo, Will there be a dial in? Pat Patrick Kane Senior Vice President Verisign Naming and Directory Services PKane@Verisign.com<mailto:PKane@Verisign.com> t: 703.948.3349<tel:703.948.3349> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://www.verisigninc.com/> The Manifesto of Done - The point of being done is not to finish, but to get other things done. [cid:image001.gif@01CFFE5B.5A3CD950] From:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gustavo Lozano Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:43 PM To: gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: [gtld-tech] 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...), 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 Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

Gustavo, One more question I forgot to ask this afternoon. Are these two lines required if the registry is a thick registry? WHOIS Server: Referral URL: Thank you. -- Marco On 13/11/14 10:07, Gustavo Lozano wrote:

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&...).

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 <mailto:gustavo.lozano@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 10:42 To: <gtld-tech@icann.org <mailto: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...), 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

-- Marco Davids Technical Advisor SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | Postbus 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM T +31 (0)26 352 55 83 | M +31 (0)6 52 37 34 35 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 marco.davids@sidn.nl | www.sidnlabs.nl | www.sidn.nl XMMP: marco.davids@jabber.sidn.nl | Twitter: @marcodavids

AFAIK - yes -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marco Davids (SIDN) Sent: 14 November 2014 03:11 To: gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 Gustavo, One more question I forgot to ask this afternoon. Are these two lines required if the registry is a thick registry? WHOIS Server: Referral URL: Thank you. -- Marco On 13/11/14 10:07, Gustavo Lozano wrote:

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&...).

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 <mailto:gustavo.lozano@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 10:42 To: <gtld-tech@icann.org <mailto: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...), 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

-- Marco Davids Technical Advisor SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | Postbus 5022 | 6802 EA | ARNHEM T +31 (0)26 352 55 83 | M +31 (0)6 52 37 34 35 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05 marco.davids@sidn.nl | www.sidnlabs.nl | www.sidn.nl XMMP: marco.davids@jabber.sidn.nl | Twitter: @marcodavids

Gustavo, Below are the notes that I took from the meeting. Hopefully others have additional notes to add or update to these. 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. Gustavo described changes between Version 1 and 2 of the WHOIS Clarifications. Gustavo stated that new fields require the use of an RSEP. 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”. There was the recommendation to enable registries to test the PDT testing validation ahead of enforcing it. Question - Can we wait for RDAP? RDAP will take time and we cannot wait. Question - Why return non-existent fields using a key and empty value? To stay in line with Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement It was brought up that there is a mix of including non-existent fields and also support for optional fields. 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. Action Item - ICANN to bring the feedback back for internal discussion and provide a response to the gtld-tech list. Question - Why is the contact name optional, since it’s required in EPP? ICANN believed that it was either name or organization, but that is not the case. 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" Question - Why is the contact phone and contact street required? Contact phone and street is a required field in the RAA. 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. Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address. Question - How to handle multiple contacts of the same type (Admin, Tech, Billing) Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement only supports a single contact per type, so the Registry must select only one to display. Question - Why include the requirement that WHOIS queries for domain name data MUST return only one record per WHOIS query? 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. Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address. Can ICANN respond with a status and update on the action items? Thanks, — JG 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&...).

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...), 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>

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 * PGP - 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. 5. Question - Can we wait for RDAP? RDAP will take time and we cannot wait. 6. 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. 7. 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" 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 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> 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

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. 5. Question - Can we wait for RDAP? RDAP will take time and we cannot wait. 6. 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. 7. 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" 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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> 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

Greg, My feedback is embedded below. — JG [cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com] James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgould@Verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com> On Nov 25, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Greg Aaron <greg@illumintel.com<mailto: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. Yes, contracts can and do define fields that are mandatory that are not mandatory in EPP. The key is which contract is referenced here, Registrar or Registry. In the case that we’re talking about, the phone and street is mandatory according to the Registrar Agreement (RAA) but not in the Registry Agreement. The registries are not required to validate that the Registrars do pass a phone and street for every contact, so the Registry WHOIS itself is not required to display those fields. Simply stating that the RAA makes a field required for the Registrar does not flow through to the Registry and the Registry WHOIS. 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? Paragraph 1.3 of Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement, states “For fields where more than one value exists, multiple key/value pairs with the same key shall be allowed”. In the case of multiple contacts of a given type (e.g. Admin), there are a set of fields with a different set of keys (“Admin ID”, “Admin Name”, etc.), so Paragraph 1.3 does not cover it. 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. You can’t imply an anti-requirement in one service based on a requirement of a different service. The existing port 43 WHOIS servers of some of the registries that participated in the meeting support partial match of the object handles (domain name, host name) to display a list of matching records instead of a single record when more than one matches. This has been the behavior for a long time, so the clarification inadvertently is removing functionality that equates to a new requirement. If the intent of the clarifications is to not define new requirements, then this item should be removed. For example, do the following command line whois queries against the .COM, .NET WHOIS servers for EXAMPLE.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM>: $ whois EXAMPLE.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM> Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. EXAMPLE.COM.AU EXAMPLE.COM.FLORAMEIYUKWONG.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM.FLORAMEIYUKWONG.COM> EXAMPLE.COM.RAFAELYALUFF.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM.RAFAELYALUFF.COM> EXAMPLE.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM> ... Now, to return the record information, =“xxx” can be used: $ whois ="EXAMPLE.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM>" Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Server Name: EXAMPLE.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM>.AU Registrar: ENETICA PTY LTD Whois Server: whois.enetica.com.au<http://whois.enetica.com.au> Referral URL: http://www.enetica.com.au Server Name: EXAMPLE.COM.FLORAMEIYUKWONG.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM.FLORAMEIYUKWONG.COM> IP Address: 173.203.204.123 Registrar: GODADDY.COM<http://GODADDY.COM>, LLC Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com<http://whois.godaddy.com> Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Server Name: EXAMPLE.COM.RAFAELYALUFF.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM.RAFAELYALUFF.COM> IP Address: 173.203.204.123 Registrar: DOMAIN.COM<http://DOMAIN.COM>, LLC Whois Server: whois.domain.com<http://whois.domain.com> Referral URL: http://www.domain.com Domain Name: EXAMPLE.COM<http://EXAMPLE.COM> Registrar: RESERVED-INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY Whois Server: whois.iana.org<http://whois.iana.org> Referral URL: http://res-dom.iana.org Name Server: A.IANA-SERVERS.NET<http://A.IANA-SERVERS.NET> Name Server: B.IANA-SERVERS.NET<http://B.IANA-SERVERS.NET> Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 14-aug-2014 Creation Date: 14-aug-1995 Expiration Date: 13-aug-2015 ... Other WHOIS servers function in a similar fashion, so is the intent of the clarification to change this behavior and if so should it? All best, --Greg From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Whois advisory feedback meeting @IETF91 * PGP - 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”. * 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? * To stay in line with Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement * It was brought up that there is a mix of including non-existent fields and also support for optional fields. * 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. * 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? * ICANN believed that it was either name or organization, but that is not the case. * 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? * Contact phone and street is a required field in the RAA. * 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. * Action Item - ICANN took note of this to address. 1. Question - How to handle multiple contacts of the same type (Admin, Tech, Billing) * 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? * 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. * 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<x-msg://107/jgould@Verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://verisigninc.com/> On Nov 14, 2014, at 3:41 PM, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gustavo.lozano@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2014 at 10:07 To: "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto: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&...). 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<mailto:gustavo.lozano@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 at 10:42 To: <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto: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...), 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<mailto:JGould@verisign.com>> * Issuer: Symantec Corporation - Unverified

The goal was to not create new requirements.

Good, all items in the advisory shoudl be tested against that statement.

The new target date for enforcing the WHOIS Clarifications is March 31, 2015 instead of February 12, 2015

Can we worry about a 'date' for enforcing things until long-after the advisories are actually corrected ?

Question - Can we wait for RDAP? RDAP will take time and we cannot wait.

Why can WHOIS changes not wait for the (planned) replacement to whois ? What's the 'driving force' behind the requirement to do yet more work on a (soon-to-be) defunct service ? More specifically ... who benefits ? Rb