RE: [registrars] EPP transfer

["Monte Cahn" <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed! 


Monte Cahn
Founder/CEO
 
Monte@xxxxxxxxxxx
Monte@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
O - 954-984-8445
F - 954-969-9155
 
Moniker.com - ICANN Accredited Corporate Domain Management Services
DomainSystems.com - Domain Sales & After-market Services
CoolHandle.com - World Class Hosting and Email Solutions

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tbarrett
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:56 PM
To: 'Mike Lampson'; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] EPP transfer

I would disagree.  Upgrading from one verion of EPP to another would be a
waste of time and money unless there were guarantees that it would result in
a standard across all registries.

I would support not doing anything until Verisign decides what version of
EPP they plan to support and when.

Best Regards,

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Lampson
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:06 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] EPP transfer


> "1. That no existing EPP registry shall be required to upgrade to EPP 
> until such time that .com and .net are both operating on EPP."

Actually, I think it should be the other way around.  The EPP syntaxes used
by .INFO, .BIZ, .NAME and .ORG are quite diverse (especially .INFO).  I
would like to see the "easy" upgrades of the existing EPP Registries before
dealing with .NET or .COM.

IMHO,

Mike Lampson
The Registry at Info Avenue, LLC

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ross Wm Rader
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 11:02 AM
To: Elana Broitman
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] EPP transfer


On 5/17/2004 10:53 AM Elana Broitman noted that:

> someone suggested that as a way to transition from rrp to epp.

I'd like to toss another suggestion into the mix...

"1. That no existing EPP registry shall be required to upgrade to EPP until
such time that .com and .net are both operating on EPP."

Here's why...

All of the other registries are already operating with some flavor of EPP
and all interested registrars have already undertaken an integration with
those registries. .com and .net are the last two that Registrars are really
concerned with. While it would be nice to have .biz and .info running
precisely the same flavor of EPP, not having this isn't going to kill
anyone. On the other hand, Verisign's implementation of EPP might. I'd
prefer that Registrars get a chance to focus on the intricacies that will be
associated with the .com and .net migrations without the distraction of
anything else going on. This will also give the other registry operators the
luxury of having some time to react to any business policy changes that
Verisign might require as part of the migration. At the end of the day,
business policy interoperability is probably more important to Registrars
than technical interoperability between Registrars and I think we would all
benefit from being able to focus on doing the hard work first (.com and
.net) followed by the easier ones....



--

                        -rwr








                 "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                            All life is an experiment.
                             The more experiments you make the better."
                         - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org