Hi all, I propose that the registries implement the following change: Instead of using proprietory registrar ids, standardized ids shall be used both on protocol level (rrp/epp/reports etc.) and in the whois output. The effect would be that for example CORE is IANA-15 in all registry communication and not R135-LRMS at Afilias, R23-LROR at PIR and so on. Especially transfers would become simpler, e.g. registrants will be less confused who they want to transfer their domain to, Yours, Marcus
Schlund is definitely in SUPPORT of such a change. I hope that the migration to EPP 1.0 will provide us with the possibility to implement such a change. Best, tom Am 10.08.2004 schrieb Marcus Faure:
Hi all,
I propose that the registries implement the following change:
Instead of using proprietory registrar ids, standardized ids shall be used both on protocol level (rrp/epp/reports etc.) and in the whois output.
The effect would be that for example CORE is IANA-15 in all registry communication and not R135-LRMS at Afilias, R23-LROR at PIR and so on. Especially transfers would become simpler, e.g. registrants will be less confused who they want to transfer their domain to,
Yours, Marcus
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Key-Systems would also like to see this change happen to the benefit of the registrant. Robbie Thomas Keller schrieb:
Schlund is definitely in SUPPORT of such a change. I hope that the migration to EPP 1.0 will provide us with the possibility to implement such a change.
Best,
tom
Am 10.08.2004 schrieb Marcus Faure:
Hi all,
I propose that the registries implement the following change:
Instead of using proprietory registrar ids, standardized ids shall be used both on protocol level (rrp/epp/reports etc.) and in the whois output.
The effect would be that for example CORE is IANA-15 in all registry communication and not R135-LRMS at Afilias, R23-LROR at PIR and so on. Especially transfers would become simpler, e.g. registrants will be less confused who they want to transfer their domain to,
Yours, Marcus
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Marcus, We support it. Sounds great. But I do have have one question. What does a Registry put when the Registrar is not an offical Registrar, yet still is the Registrar-of-record? Examples: R222-LROR = Afilias Reserved 1 R194-LRMS = Test Registrar 1 R197-LROR = Verisign Global Registry Services R198-LROR = VeriSign GRS (ORG) R214-LROR = VGRS Internal390 R233-LROR = LibertyRMS Co. (PIR's fake company) R12-LROR = 7 DC, Inc. (PIR's fake company) R121-LROR = Vayala Corp. (PIR's fake company) R152-LROR = Affinity Internet, Inc. (PIR's fake company) TERMINATED REGISTRAR found at VeriSign-GRS Do all these have IANA IDs? If not, what number do they get? Or what happens to these Registrars? It seams like lots of domains get registered by non-ICANN registrars. Marcus I 100% agree with you, IANA IDs would make this a lot easier. 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 Marcus Faure Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:39 AM To: registrars@dnso.org Subject: [registrars] Using IANA IDs Hi all, I propose that the registries implement the following change: Instead of using proprietory registrar ids, standardized ids shall be used both on protocol level (rrp/epp/reports etc.) and in the whois output. The effect would be that for example CORE is IANA-15 in all registry communication and not R135-LRMS at Afilias, R23-LROR at PIR and so on. Especially transfers would become simpler, e.g. registrants will be less confused who they want to transfer their domain to, Yours, Marcus
Jay, This is a good point. The set of code points "current" at any point in time at the IANA registry doesn't account for registry-transitional "registrars", nor can it account for registrars no longer "current" (ICANN accredited) -- rather like the .su country code. I suspect we need something more. Eric
I can't believe that IANA would recycle the same ID's for a new Registrar. Surely, they would simply issue a brand new idea, and the old Registrar would keep theirs forever. This would solve the problem of a Registrar being de-accredited. The ID would remain the same. You might want to include an additional status, or message along with it, but we should work towards standardizing the Registrar ID's, and ensuring they never get recycled. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:19 PM To: Jay Westerdal Cc: 'Marcus Faure'; registrars@dnso.org; brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [registrars] Using IANA IDs Jay, This is a good point. The set of code points "current" at any point in time at the IANA registry doesn't account for registry-transitional "registrars", nor can it account for registrars no longer "current" (ICANN accredited) -- rather like the .su country code. I suspect we need something more. Eric
Rob, I agree that it seems that the IANA allocations are one-time, however, there are non-allocations that show up in registries (see Jay's note), and when an IANA code point is "de-allocated", how is the name of the defunct (or at least not currently "in status", dues, policy or whatnot) recovered? Who were registrars #4-7, what is #8, who was #10-12, 17-30, et seq.? Eric
Hello, maybe we should use an id like IANA-nn for (de-)accredited registrars and a prefix LOCAL-<registry>-nn for non-IANA registrars. I do not think that the LOCAL tags should be much of a problem as they will not appear frequently in everyday life. The whole purpose of this approach is simplification for the end user, and that is reached when you have a solution for 99% of all cases. Yours, Marcus
Rob,
I agree that it seems that the IANA allocations are one-time, however, there are non-allocations that show up in registries (see Jay's note), and when an IANA code point is "de-allocated", how is the name of the defunct (or at least not currently "in status", dues, policy or whatnot) recovered?
Who were registrars #4-7, what is #8, who was #10-12, 17-30, et seq.?
Eric
participants (6)
-
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Jay Westerdal -
Marcus Faure -
Rob Hall -
Robbie Birkner -
Thomas Keller