[registrars] RE: [registrars] PIR’s EPP DOMAIN INFO command change announcement
- To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [registrars] RE: [registrars] PIR’s EPP DOMAIN INFO command change announcement
- From: "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:34:41 -0700
- Cc: <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, <bbeckwith@xxxxxxx>, <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB540595CB@balius.mit>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcR7VtelqObzEd8WS2aTiOE6ul62zQAAjJhAACASU8A=
>> With respect to the EPP protocol, a field may be returned empty
>> and still be compliant with the protocol. It is a policy
>> decision for what content needs to be provided in which field for
>> certain queries.
>> 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.
Where as some fields may be optional to return all together, returning
empty values in fields would be miss-leading and wrong. The answer
would be to not return the fields at all. But I digress, these fields
may not be technically required but for practical purposes are necessary.
Registry Status of a domain can only be found at the Registry level.
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 7:08 PM
To: Jay Westerdal; bbeckwith@xxxxxxx; twomey@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: halloran@xxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] PIR’s EPP DOMAIN INFO command change announcement
Actually I support the general changes being considered by PIR.
What is done with the Australian .com.au registry (which uses EPP), is that the <info> command returns full details if:
(a) the request is from the registrar of record for that particular domain name record
(b) the auth-info password is provided
Thus for a transfer-in, a gaining registrar can request the full record provided the registrant has provided the correct auth-info.
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.
With respect to the EPP protocol, a field may be returned empty and still be compliant with the protocol. It is a policy decision for what content needs to be provided in which field for certain queries.
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.
Right now from a contractual point of view, the information must be supplied in the WHOIS (not necessarily via EPP).
Personally I hope this decision can be reviewed as part of the WHOIS policy development.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jay Westerdal
> Sent: Friday, 6 August 2004 11:44 AM
> To: bbeckwith@xxxxxxx; twomey@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: halloran@xxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] PIR’s EPP DOMAIN INFO command change
> Name Intelligence, Inc.
> 12806 SE 22nd PL · Bellevue, WA 98005
> August 5, 2004
> VIA EMAIL
> Attention: Paul Twomey and Bruce Beckwith Public Interest Registry
> 1775 Wiehle Ave, Suite 102A
> Reston, Virginia 20190
> Phone: +1-703-464-7005
> Facsimile: +1-703-464-7006
> RE: PIR’s EPP DOMAIN INFO command change announcement
> Dear Paul Twomey and Bruce Beckwith,
> Name Intelligence, Inc. has just been made aware that PIR
> will be modifying its Dot ORG Registry Software to be
> non-compliant with EPP1.0. They are moving away from full
> complacence with EPP 1.0’s DOMAIN INFO command. Their
> announcement is that they will stop providing complete
> information according to RFC 3732. Their intention is stop
> showing all information except for Registrar of record. The
> reason is to make the command thinner and prevent data
> mining. However NO registrant information is even being
> returned with this command right now. The “INFO” command is
> already a thin command that shows very little information.
> The information that it does show is fields like: Domain
> Name, Registrar of Record, Domain Status (On-hold,
> Transfer-prohibited, Registrar-lock), Domain Creation Date,
> Modification Date, Expiration Date. We need these fields for
> our domain suggestion software that appears on
> NetworkSolutions.com, GoDaddy.com, Enom.com, Yahoo, and lots
> of other registration company’s websites. This software helps
> millions of people a year to register domain names. PIR’s
> impact on our business and that of our customers would be
> overwhelming if their stated changes takes place.
> Even VeriSign which operates a thin Registry would be showing
> more information then PIR after PIR’s EPP change. PIR limits
> their whois access more severally then VeriSign does.
> Therefore gathering Domain Status and expiration date is very
> complex with PIR. With VeriSign we just query for this using
> their whois and we get the answer back. We tried this
> approach with PIR but they banned our IP addresses because
> they said we requested too many records. I am not sure if
> that was fair and equal for them to do since we sevice
> millions of customers a day, but that is the primary reason
> our company sought accreditation as an ICANN Registrar.
> Querying via the EPP command instead of whois allows us
> access to the same information which is critical to the
> operations of our company. Actually, the info command returns
> less information then whois. But having got accredited just
> for EPP domain info command and now using EPP to gather this
> information we later hear that PIR is going to begin hiding
> domain’s status and expiration date from the DOMAIN INFO
> command. Our business relies on this EPP command to
> determine the domain’s status and expiration date and we use
> these values in our suggestion software.
> We formally request that PIR repeal their decision on hiding
> expiration date and status from the DOMAIN INFO command. And
> we also formally request that ICANN enforce their contract
> with PIR and make them stay complaint with EPP 1.0 (RFC3732)
> for the DOMAIN INFO command.
> PIR has stated several times that they wish to be the model
> registry, yet this move by them would make them even worse
> then VeriSign as far as usability. It would degrade the
> registration process of millions of users annually.
> Suggestions for available domain names is a service that
> users rely on and expect in a good registrar. PIR would force
> our software to be less accurate and possible suggest a .ORG
> domain that is already registered. And in my option that is a
> move in the wrong direction for this registry. Helping us
> help the registrars with registration is where I want to see
> PIR headed.
> Jay Westerdal
> President and CEO Name Intelligence, Inc.
> CC: Dan Holloran, Registrars