Re: [registrars] EPP transfer

[Larry Erlich <erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Elana Broitman wrote:
> 
> Mike - Yes, this was raised and we all understand that point.

I heard that the requirements were different but
I did not hear that basically .com and .net were not required
under ALL circumstances to implement EPP.

So with regard to this:

>(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.

Has anyone calculated the cost/benefit of this move
for .com .net? (No.) Given this I would fully suggest that we explore this
and take a position that unless proven otherwise the cost
does not outweigh the "potential advantages".

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com


>  We have been communicating directly with the constituency, and obviously per my message below, w
> 
> 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

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------------------------------