Dennis / IRT / IPT,

Generally I think the redlined AWIP (now ARIP) policy looks good. I’d like to re-affirm my support for the approach taken of making the policy more technology agnostic. I believe that will serve the community well moving forward.

I have a couple feedback items:

Status code link – there is an inconsistency between ARIP and the RDAP profile. In ARIP the requirements is: “For more information on RDDS status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp” (section 1.1). In the RDAP profile the requirement is: ““For more information on domain status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp“ (section 2.6.3 of the response profile). I think that “domain” is the better choice. Those aren’t RDDS status codes, they are domain status codes being displayed in RDDS output, so my suggestion is to change ARIP to match the RDAP profile.

Section 1.1 (asterisk) – The last bit “…is also compliant under the AWIP”. Should this read “…is also compliant under ARIP.” since this is now the ARIP policy, or maybe make it more generic “…is also compliant with this policy.”

WHOIS Status(es) (section 2.1) – the language in section 2.1 doesn’t read right “status(es) MUST be referred by their respective EPP status codes”. The quick grammatical fix would be to change that to “status(es) MUST be referred to by their respective EPP status codes”. I’m not sure that is the best wording for that requirement. Something like “status(es) MUST be displayed using their respective EPP status codes” might be more accurate. Alternatively it could be worded along the lines of “WHOIS responses MUST include the EPP status codes for each status applicable to the domain”. I think for those of us on this mailing list, the intent of the language is understood, but perhaps the wording in that third suggestion would be a little clearer to someone not as familiar with WHOIS and the ARIP requirements.

Notes section (page 2) – in the last sentence, the “AWIP” should probably be updated. I suggest adding “(now ARIP)” so it reads: “All ICANN-accredited registrars and gTLD registries must comply with the AWIP (now ARIP) with respect to registrations they sponsor in all top-level domains, which they are accredited for or administer, beginning on the effective date.” As far as the effective date, does that change with the updated version of this policy or are registries and registrars expected to be compliant already? I think it’s the later, but that should be confirmed so we all have the same understanding.

Best,

Marc

From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy
Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 10:09 AM
To: Anderson, Marc via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IRT.RegDataPolicy] IRT Task 238 Review Additional Whois Information Policy (post Public Comment version) due 20230517

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear IRT,

The Additional Whois Information Policy now known to us as Additional RDDS Information Policy has been updated.

Redlined_Additional Whois Information Policy (post Public Comment version)

Clean_Additional Whois Information Policy (post Public Comment version)

To explain this update, we’ve also prepared the AWIP Post Public Comment Update Rationale

All these documents are available on the IRT wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/RDPIRT/RegDataPolicy+Implementation+Resource+Documents

Kind Regards,

Dennis S. Chang

GDD Programs Director

Phone: +1 213 293 7889

Sykpe: dennisSchang