<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Poll Message Feedback from Registries Constituency
- To: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Poll Message Feedback from Registries Constituency
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:55:19 -0700
<html><body><font style="" color="#000000"><font size="2"><font
style="font-family: verdana,geneva;" face="verdana,geneva">Barbara and
Group:<br><br><font style="" color="#000000"><font style="font-family:
verdana,geneva;" face="verdana,geneva">Thank you for gathering this data and
feedback from your internal folks and the RyC. Does the fact that some TLDs
require a registrant email address, and post this to WHOIS, challenge the
premise of Question I? <br><br></font></font>I agree, modifying the RFCs would
be impractical. But perhaps we wouldn't need to take such a drastic
step. The provisioning system could be extended (the "E" in "EPP") to
incorporate this functionality, and could be done on a per-TLD basis via
feature release, funnel request or other updates. <br><br>That said, I am
certainly not convinced that this is the right (or only) approach. But
with respect to Question I., it does seem that our options are limited to one
of the following:<br><br>1. Use an existing Registry / Registrar or
Registrar/Registrar communication channel<br>2. Create a new Ry/Rr or
Rr/Rr communication channel and require its adoption by all
parties.<br>3. Status Quo<br><br><font style="" color="#000000"><font
style="font-family: verdana,geneva;" face="verdana,geneva">While
n</font></font>oting earlier discussions that any approval chain that involves
or requires one or more email exchanges is inherently insecure and
unathenticated.<br><br>J.<br><br></font></font></font><br>
<blockquote webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px;
padding-left: 8px;">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Poll Message Feedback from Registries<br>
Constituency<br>
From: "Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx><br>
Date: Mon, August 18, 2008 12:14 pm<br>
To: <Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx><br>
<br>
<br>
All,<br>
In follow up to my action item relating to whether or not the EPP poll<br>
message functionality could be expanded to allow for the passing of<br>
registrant e-mail address between registrars, either directly or via the<br>
registry, I have received confirmation that the RFC (ie. 3730) did not<br>
contemplate the use of poll messages in this way. In addition, I have<br>
been advised that a modification of the RFC would be required in order<br>
to even consider this as an option and experience has been that<br>
modfications to RFCs require very long lead times. Therefore, the<br>
general consensus of the Registries Constituency is that this is not a<br>
viable option.<br>
<br>
In the case of Afilias, which operates EPP systems for .info, .org,<br>
.aero, .mobi and .asia, they allow a registrar to retrieve the<br>
registrant e-mail addresses via EPP if the registrar possesses the<br>
domain's auth_info code. Note that a legitimate gaining registrar<br>
should possess the auth_info code as they would have obtained it from<br>
the registrant. This particular solution was done to facilitate the<br>
registrar-to-registrar transfer process while involving the registrant's<br>
assent.<br>
<br>
Members of the RyC who provided feedback also indicated that ICANN<br>
Registry Agreements require that the registrant e-mail address field be<br>
displayed in the WHOIS of most gTLDs and sTLDs and most of those<br>
registries make submission and display of registrant e-mail address<br>
mandatory. Of course, this would only be possible if the registry is<br>
'thick'. <br>
<br>
Finally, below is a table denoting which registries are operating using<br>
EPP, as compiled to date. I will continue to follow up with those that<br>
have not yet responded.<br>
<br>
Registry Operator TLD EPP<br>
Registry Whois Publishes the Registrant e-Mail (Port 43) Notes<br>
VeriSign .com Yes<br>
No<br>
VeriSign .net Yes<br>
No <br>
Registry Pro .pro Yes <br>
Neustar .biz Yes Yes <br>
Afilias .info Yes Yes <br>
PIR .org Yes<br>
Yes<br>
EPP Provided by Afilias<br>
Global Name Registry .name Yes<br>
EPP provided by VeriSign<br>
MuseDoma .museum Yes <br>
Dot Coop .coop Yes<br>
Yes <br>
SITA .aero Yes<br>
EPP provided by Afilias<br>
Employ Media .jobs Yes No<br>
EPP provided by VeriSign<br>
mTLD .mobi Yes<br>
Yes<br>
EPP provided by Afilias<br>
PuntCAT .cat <br>
Tralliance Corp. .travel <br>
Telnic Ltd. .tel <br>
Dot Asia .asia Yes<br>
Yes<br>
EPP provided by Afilias<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------------------------------------------------<br>
Barbara Steele<br>
Compliance Officer<br>
VeriSign Information Services<br>
bsteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx<br>
Direct: 703.948.3343<br>
Mobile: 703.622.1071<br>
Fax: 703.421.4873<br>
21345 Ridgetop Circle<br>
Dulles, VA 20166<br>
<br>
<br>
Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary<br>
and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient<br>
and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the<br>
prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you<br>
have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender<br>
immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original<br>
message without making a copy. Thank you.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|