I have heard some rumors PIR is only concerned about contact-ids being shown to other registrars. To that, I would say, yes. Only the current registrar or one with an auth-code should get those objects. That would be a good policy. But not to go over board with limiting domain-INFO to only show the Registrar of record. This is the minimum amount of information I would like PIR to return in the Domain-INFO command just like VeriSign-GRS does in their thin whois. Domain Name: VERISIGN.COM Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.CRSNIC.NET Name Server: BAY-W1-INF5.VERISIGN.NET Name Server: GOLDENGATE-W2-INF6.VERISIGN.NET Status: ACTIVE Updated Date: 02-mar-2004 Creation Date: 02-jun-1995 Expiration Date: 01-jun-2012 That is Registrar, Name Servers, Dates, and Status. Regards, Jay Westerdal Name Intelligence, Inc. http://www.nameintelligence.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 5:59 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine; registrars@dnso.org; brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [registrars] PIR EPP 1.0 and Domain Info command Morning, or afternoon, again Bruce,
Agreed.
Now I'm confused. I thought you wrote that the PIR <info> mods were defensible, citing the .au registry practice, and that this is a whois issue. I had the impression that I wrote that PIR <info> mods were not defensible (to really be anal about this, PIR should put out an extension to EPP that defines any non-zero response to be generally an error, except where authinfo is presented by the registrar, which several of us could write for them), and that this isn't a whois issue. Maybe we're just in agreement that when PIR spills its soup, tails wag. Eric