RE: [registrars] EPP transfer

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Elana:

My main concern is that the constituencies are aware of all of the issues
before initiating their work. One of the important points that Bruce raised
during the his speech in Rome was the need to analysis all the issues prior
to engaging in any type of PDP exercise. Without a properly defined scope of
work and issue statement, any policy development efforts is likely to fall
short of the desire goal. I think it is now important to let the community
and ICANN staff do their work so the interests of the registrars can be
protected.

Thanks again.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

-----Original Message-----
From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:30 AM
To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Cc: dam@xxxxxxxxx; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] EPP transfer


Mike - Yes, this was raised and we all understand that point.  We have been
communicating directly with the constituency, and obviously per my message
below, will follow up with them again.

The 2 constituencies will then communicate with ICANN staff, and the Board
if you all are interested in direct contact on this.

Thank you.

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
> EFax  (800) 886-2716
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:22 AM
To: Elana Broitman; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] EPP transfer


Elana:

I believe it is important for the registrar community to engage in an active
dialogue with the registry constituency on this very important issue that
directly and significantly impacts their businesses, and I applaud this
effort. I spoke with a number of registrars (large, medium and niche) last
year that had some valuable input in connection with the .ORG transition and
I hope that the community would be able to learn from this experience and
enhance any future transition.

There is one material point that I did want to raise. I unfortunately missed
the call so I do not know if you raised this rather important point. The
contractual language regarding EPP migration is NOT uniform across all
registry contracts. For example, Appendix C of the .com and .net agreement
have the following provision:

VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS) is committed to participating in
and supporting the work of the IETF's provreg working group. VeriSign
intends to migrate the current Shared Registration System to the new
standard if: (1) The IETF working group defines a protocol standard; (2) the
standard can be implemented in a way that minimizes disruption to customers;
and (3) the standard provides a solution for which the potential advantages
are reasonably justifiable when weighed against the costs that VGRS and its
registrar customers would incur in implementing the new standard.

On the other hand, if you look at Section C.2 in the .biz registry contract
you will see the following provision:

Neulevel will implement support for the IETF PROVREG working group's
protocol specification no later than 135 days after it is adopted as a
Proposed Standard [RFC 2026, section 4.1.1].

Therefore, I hope wearing your legal hat you pointed out these important
contractual distinctions to the registrars on the call.

If this is a consensus opinion of the registrars constituency, I believe the
constituency may want to decide if it is appropriate for Ross to raise these
issues to the .NET Committee which he currently serves on to protect the
interests of registrars.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 9:28 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] EPP transfer


Hi all - last Thursday we had a registrars only call to discuss our "wish
list" to send to the registries with regard to EPP transition.  The
conversation included more generally the question of registry-registrar
relations and we came up with a somewhat broader list.  I would like to
communicate it now to the registries.  Please see below and send me any
comments today.  I will send the final list to the registries tomorrow.


*	com/net registries should remain thin after transition;
*	registries should conduct an OT&E environment prior to initiating a
transition period
*	registries should sync up their business rules as much as possible (e.g.,
whois fields)
*	a 3rd party should validate that the registries have synced the rules
prior to initiating a transition period
*	transition processes should be the same or as similar as possible
*	RRP-EPP transitions should allow for legacy registrations until
transitions are completed and checked in order not to turn off
registration/renewals
*	the transition should be as long as possible, at least through Q1 2005
*	com/net transition should allow for an additional year beyond BONI
*	the registries should not require auth codes for transfers until all
transition periods are done
*	an implementation committee that includes registrars should be established
*	there should be a standardization of maintenance notices and other types
of notices and reports
*	registrars should be able to electronically query registries about their
balances
*	registries should provide a list of recommended developers for reference
by registrars that need consultants


Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
> EFax  (800) 886-2716
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx