RE: [registrars] EPP transfer

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry - very fair statement.  This is one of the items to be discussed with the registries.  My understanding from VeriSign is that they intend to make the transition.  There is also a general understanding that whoever wins the next .net contract (even if it is VeriSign) will be required to make the transition.

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: root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
Of Larry Erlich
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:00 PM
To: Elana Broitman
Cc: michael@xxxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx; dam@xxxxxxxxx;
jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] EPP transfer


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
-----------------------------------------------------------------