ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08]

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

[gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Thoughts on Question #1

  • To: "IRTP-A " <Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Thoughts on Question #1
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:26:09 -0700
<html><body><font color="#000000"><font size="2"><font 
face="verdana,geneva">Team:<br><br>From our WG charter, the first question we 
are considering reads:<br><i><br>1.&nbsp; </i></font></font></font><i>Whether 
there could be a way for registrars to make Registrant Email
Address data available to one another. Currently there is no way of
automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email
Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down
and/or complicates the process for registrants, especially since the
Registrant can overrule the Admin Contact.<br><br></i>I was thinking about this 
the other day, and kicking around methods / systems of inter-registrar 
communication.&nbsp; One idea was to extend or modify the Poll Message facility 
of EPP for this function.<br><br><font color="#000000"><font size="2"><font 
face="verdana,geneva">The </font></font></font>Poll Message system, in my 
opinion, is very under-utilized.&nbsp; It has the advantage of being both an 
authenticated and secure channel of communication between the Registry and 
Registrar, but is mostly unidirectional (Registrar does not create messages for 
Registry) and there is no means for registrars to communicate with each 
other.&nbsp; Because of its limited utility, some registrars pay little 
attention to Poll messages, or build automated systems to retrieve them and 
file away.&nbsp; Others keep very close tabs on their Poll message 
queue.<br><br>Perhaps this could be extended to&nbsp; allow registrars to 
create Poll Messages for each other, for those situations (transfers, mostly) 
which require the sharing of registrant information.&nbsp; Certainly, some 
risks would have to be worked out. Perhaps the requesting registrar could 
include the AuthInfo key in their message to ensure that they are authorized to 
receive registrant info.<br><br>Anyway, just a brainstorm at this point.&nbsp; 
One could make the case that the industry as a whole is overly dependent upon 
unsecure, unreliable (email, fax) and / or politically sensitive (whois) 
information systems.&nbsp; The coming wave of gTLDs may also require a 
significant re-design of EPP to address needs it wasn't originally designed to 
meet, and might be scrapped altogether in a few years.&nbsp; EPP's successor 
should include some registrar cross-talk 
functions.<br><br>J.<br><br></body></html>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>