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

["Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> 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. 

Bruce,
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.

Regards,

Jay



-----Original Message-----
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

Hello Jay,

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
Or
(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.

Regards,
Bruce




> -----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 
> announcement
> 
> 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.
> 
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/org/
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3732.html
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> 
> Jay Westerdal
> President and CEO Name Intelligence, Inc.
> CC: Dan Holloran, Registrars
> 
>