ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] RE: [registrars] PIR’s EPP DOMAIN INFO command change announcement

  • To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: [registrars] PIR’s EPP DOMAIN INFO command change announcement
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 19:38:35 -0700
  • Cc: halloran@xxxxxxxxx, registrars@xxxxxxxx, Jay Westerdal <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bbeckwith@xxxxxxx, twomey@xxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<div>Bruce,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>There are probably any number of legitimate reasons why a third-party
registrar uses some of the dates or the status
information&nbsp;currently returned without providing the auth-info
code.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>For example, we check the status of requested transfers prior to ever
asking for an auth-info code. If the status does not allow transfer we
can then save the customer a lot of unnecessary time and reduce the
aggrevation. I am certain there other registrars with equally
legitimate processes using this information.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>True, we can work around with Whois, unless of course that changes
too. But the other problem is what Jay points out, PIR restricts its
whois severly. We understand their concerns regarding Whois since it is
a public utility and potentially subject to mining. However, only
accredited registrars have access to the INFO command and the results.
It seems extreme to punish everyone for what PIR may view as abuse by a
few, and that abuse may actually be legitimate use that just isn't fully
understood by PIR. It would seem to me to make more sense to attach some
micro-fee to the command then to just basically ban it
altogether.<BR><BR>The other problem we have with this is the timing.
Sometimes it seems that the registries think that they are the only
supplier we deal with and can make changes to our systems at the drop
of a hat. This change in the INFO command comes on the heels of changes
that need to be made to be compliant with the new Transfer policy and
for us, at least two other modifications that we are working on with
other registries. These days, a three month notice ain't much.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[registrars]<BR>=?utf-8?B?UkU6IFtyZWdpc3RyYXJzXSBQSVLigJlzIEVQUCBET01BSQ==?=
=?utf-8?B?TiBJTkZPIGNvbW1hbmQgY2hhbmdlIGFubm91bmNlbWU=?=
=?utf-8?B?bnQ=?=<BR>From: "Bruce Tonkin"
&lt;Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, August 05, 2004
7:08 pm<BR>To: "Jay Westerdal" &lt;jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,
bbeckwith@xxxxxxx,<BR>twomey@xxxxxxxxx<BR>Cc: halloran@xxxxxxxxx,
registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Hello Jay,<BR><BR>Actually I support the
general changes being considered by PIR.<BR><BR>What is done with the
Australian .com.au registry (which uses EPP), is that the &lt;info&gt;
command returns full details if:<BR>(a) the request is from the
registrar of record for that particular domain name record<BR>Or<BR>(b)
the auth-info password is provided<BR><BR>Thus for a transfer-in, a
gaining registrar can request the full record provided the registrant
has provided the correct auth-info.<BR><BR>I see no reason why the
general public needs to know the expiry date of a registrant's domain
name licence, any more than you need to know the expiry date of my
drivers licence or passport.<BR><BR>With respect to the EPP protocol, a
field may be returned empty and still be compliant with the protocol.
&nbsp;It is a policy decision for what content needs to be provided in
which field for certain queries.<BR><BR>I don't believe that the
proposed change would be non-compliant with EPP, any more than a thin
registry model would be non-compliant with EPP.<BR><BR>Right now from a
contractual point of view, the information must be supplied in the WHOIS
(not necessarily via EPP).<BR>Personally I hope this decision can be
reviewed as part of the WHOIS policy
development.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Bruce<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>&gt;
-----Original Message-----<BR>&gt; From:
owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>&gt;
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jay
Westerdal<BR>&gt; Sent: Friday, 6 August 2004 11:44 AM<BR>&gt; To:
bbeckwith@xxxxxxx; twomey@xxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; Cc: halloran@xxxxxxxxx;
registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; Subject: [registrars] PIRâ??s EPP DOMAIN
INFO command change <BR>&gt; announcement<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Name
Intelligence, Inc.<BR>&gt; 12806 SE 22nd PL Î? Bellevue, WA
98005<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; August 5, 2004<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; VIA
EMAIL<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Attention: Paul Twomey and Bruce Beckwith Public
Interest Registry<BR>&gt; 1775 Wiehle Ave, Suite 102A<BR>&gt; Reston,
Virginia 20190<BR>&gt; Phone: +1-703-464-7005<BR>&gt; Facsimile:
+1-703-464-7006<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; RE: PIRâ??s EPP DOMAIN INFO command
change announcement<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Dear Paul Twomey and Bruce
Beckwith,<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Name Intelligence, Inc. has just been made
aware that PIR <BR>&gt; will be modifying its Dot ORG Registry Software
to be <BR>&gt; non-compliant with EPP1.0. They are moving away from full
<BR>&gt; complacence with EPP 1.0â??s DOMAIN INFO command. Their
<BR>&gt; announcement is that they will stop providing complete
<BR>&gt; information according to RFC 3732. Their intention is stop
<BR>&gt; showing all information except for Registrar of record. The
<BR>&gt; reason is to make the command thinner and prevent data
<BR>&gt; mining. However NO registrant information is even being
<BR>&gt; returned with this command right now. The â??INFOâ?? command
is <BR>&gt; already a thin command that shows very little information.
<BR>&gt; The information that it does show is fields like: Domain
<BR>&gt; Name, Registrar of Record, Domain Status (On-hold, <BR>&gt;
Transfer-prohibited, Registrar-lock), Domain Creation Date, <BR>&gt;
Modification Date, Expiration Date. We need these fields for <BR>&gt;
our domain suggestion software that appears on <BR>&gt;
NetworkSolutions.com, GoDaddy.com, Enom.com, Yahoo, and lots <BR>&gt;
of other registration companyâ??s websites. This software helps
<BR>&gt; millions of people a year to register domain names. PIRâ??s
<BR>&gt; impact on our business and that of our customers would be
<BR>&gt; overwhelming if their stated changes takes place.<BR>&gt;
<BR>&gt; Even VeriSign which operates a thin Registry would be showing
<BR>&gt; more information then PIR after PIRâ??s EPP change. PIR limits
<BR>&gt; their whois access more severally then VeriSign does. <BR>&gt;
Therefore gathering Domain Status and expiration date is very <BR>&gt;
complex with PIR. With VeriSign we just query for this using <BR>&gt;
their whois and we get the answer back. We tried this <BR>&gt; approach
with PIR but they banned our IP addresses because <BR>&gt; they said we
requested too many records. I am not sure if <BR>&gt; that was fair and
equal for them to do since we sevice <BR>&gt; millions of customers a
day, but that is the primary reason <BR>&gt; our company sought
accreditation as an ICANN Registrar. &nbsp;<BR>&gt; Querying via the
EPP command instead of whois allows us <BR>&gt; access to the same
information which is critical to the <BR>&gt; operations of our
company. Actually, the info command returns <BR>&gt; less information
then whois. But having got accredited just <BR>&gt; for EPP domain info
command and now using EPP to gather this <BR>&gt; information we later
hear that PIR is going to begin hiding <BR>&gt; domainâ??s status and
expiration date from the DOMAIN INFO <BR>&gt; command. &nbsp;Our
business relies on this EPP command to <BR>&gt; determine the
domainâ??s status and expiration date and we use <BR>&gt; these values
in our suggestion software.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; We formally request that
PIR repeal their decision on hiding <BR>&gt; expiration date and status
from the DOMAIN INFO command. And <BR>&gt; we also formally request that
ICANN enforce their contract <BR>&gt; with PIR and make them stay
complaint with EPP 1.0 (RFC3732) <BR>&gt; for the DOMAIN INFO
command.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; PIR has stated several times that they wish
to be the model <BR>&gt; registry, yet this move by them would make
them even worse <BR>&gt; then VeriSign as far as usability. It would
degrade the <BR>&gt; registration process of millions of users
annually. <BR>&gt; Suggestions for available domain names is a service
that <BR>&gt; users rely on and expect in a good registrar. PIR would
force <BR>&gt; our software to be less accurate and possible suggest a
.ORG <BR>&gt; domain that is already registered. And in my option that
is a <BR>&gt; move in the wrong direction for this registry. Helping us
<BR>&gt; help the registrars with registration is where I want to see
<BR>&gt; PIR headed.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/org/<BR>&gt;
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3732.html<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;
Sincerely,<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Jay Westerdal<BR>&gt;
President and CEO Name Intelligence, Inc.<BR>&gt; CC: Dan Holloran,
Registrars<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; </BLOCKQUOTE>




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>