<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] FW: Registrar Failover Working Group Invitation
- To: dwascher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [registrars] FW: Registrar Failover Working Group Invitation
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:50:34 -0500
- Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Wascher <David.Wascher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Comments: In-reply-to dwascher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx message dated "Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:55:16 -0500."
- In-reply-to: <EBEELHNBILGFEHBGFHIFOEBJFDAA.dwascher@iaregistry.com>
- References: <EBEELHNBILGFEHBGFHIFOEBJFDAA.dwascher@iaregistry.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> As far as I can recollect from my memory this was mainly drafted by
> Louis Touton. I have no idea who else might have been working on it
> (maybe Ken Stubbs). However it might have been I would like to join
> in.
Thanks for the reminder Tom. At that point in time, Louis did a lot of
his xml with me, and some of the escrow too -- for those that weren't
in the EPP WG, I wanted to use EPP to mirror from the registry to some
escrow (I worked for Neu* at the time), and I wanted the "registrar escrow"
function to be part of Neu*'s planning for "registrar-in-a-box" kinds of
solutions, so we (Neu*) could trivially pickup, manage-and-move the assets
of registrars who were (as the song goes) "busy, hung or dead".
IETF consensus being what it is, EPP remains client-server, so the registry
can't initiate snot or mirror flows, and registrars can't either, which is
only fair in some maximal inutility sense.
Neu* being what it is, well, who cares except the .biz and .us markets?
I haven't looked at the Escrow texts or thought about the problem since
doing the failover plans for two of the .ORG bids.
I still think that ICANN is much less relevant than actual causes for a
registry to seek some form of operational assistance, and as for those
who go out of business, its not my problem.
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|