RE: [registrars] EPP transfer

[Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx>]

i'd choose to agree with tom on this issue.

/n

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tbarrett [mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 17. maj 2004 18:56
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>