ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] PIR EPP 1.0 and Domain Info command

  • To: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] PIR EPP 1.0 and Domain Info command
  • From: "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:52:17 -0700
  • Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>, <bbeckwith@xxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <200408091258.i79CwjJP001942@nic-naa.net>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcR+Epbv8NCVThYNRn2hoXT+0yqZTgAPtdow

I have heard some rumors PIR is only concerned about contact-ids being shown
to other registrars. To that, I would say, yes. Only the current registrar
or one with an auth-code should get those objects. That would be a good
policy. But not to go over board with limiting domain-INFO to only show the
Registrar of record.

This is the minimum amount of information I would like PIR to return in the
Domain-INFO command just like VeriSign-GRS does in their thin whois.

   Domain Name: VERISIGN.COM
   Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
   Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
   Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
   Name Server: NS1.CRSNIC.NET
   Name Server: BAY-W1-INF5.VERISIGN.NET
   Name Server: GOLDENGATE-W2-INF6.VERISIGN.NET
   Status: ACTIVE
   Updated Date: 02-mar-2004
   Creation Date: 02-jun-1995
   Expiration Date: 01-jun-2012

That is Registrar, Name Servers, Dates, and Status.

Regards,

Jay Westerdal
Name Intelligence, Inc.
http://www.nameintelligence.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
in Portland Maine
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 5:59 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine; registrars@xxxxxxxx;
brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] PIR EPP 1.0 and Domain Info command 

Morning, or afternoon, again Bruce,

> Agreed.

Now I'm confused.

I thought you wrote that the PIR <info> mods were defensible, citing the .au
registry practice, and that this is a whois issue.

I had the impression that I wrote that PIR <info> mods were not defensible
(to really be anal about this, PIR should put out an extension to EPP that
defines any non-zero response to be generally an error, except where
authinfo
is presented by the registrar, which several of us could write for them),
and that this isn't a whois issue.

Maybe we're just in agreement that when PIR spills its soup, tails wag.

Eric




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>