RE: [registrars] PIR EPP 1.0 and Domain Info command
Agreed.
-----Original Message----- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net] Sent: Monday, 9 August 2004 9:10 PM 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 and Afternoon Bruce,
that making changes without appropriate notice and discussion is a bad thing. PIR should have raised this topic for discussion during the meeting in KL, and at least scheduled a teleconference.
Each hiccup is a gift to the competing .net bidders.
IMHO, provisioning, and the parties who provision, isn't usefully identified with publication. Provisioning isn't "whois", any more than escrow.
If it is, then the role of registrars (and registries) in making policy is going to be much, much less then the IPC's role. Let that camel into the tent and they may get very creative ...
Eric
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
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
Jay, I might be in favor of your proposal if it were coming from within a safe-and-sane process for the modification of the <info> response of some EPP-using registry. However, the PIR change is a unilateral dork, and correcting it by a second dork is admitting that ICANN process w.r.t. the technical oversight of registries consists of a series of dorks in a process of dorkage. I'd simply prefer another ICANN BoD rap-on-knuckles, as ocurred with the VGRS wildcard scheme. Eric
participants (3)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Jay Westerdal