FW: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] FW: Request for Comments on IRTP Response

["Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika et al,
Here is Scott's response to the last inquiry.  Please let me know if
there are additional questions or if I may be of further assistance.
Many thanks.
 
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Steele
Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
VeriSign Naming Services

 

________________________________

From: Hollenbeck, Scott 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:49 AM
To: Steele, Barbara
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] FW: Request for Comments on IRTP
Response


Barbara,
 
Yes, contact objects also have an associated authInfo value, and since
contacts and domains aren't the same objects the authInfo values are
intended to be distinct.  Yes, access to contact details (including the
email address) can be controlled based on whether or not the authInfo
value is provided when a contact query is performed.  The original
design idea is that some basic info would be available to every
registrar, but that complete information would only be available to the
sponsoring registrar or another registrar that has the authInfo.  It is
intended to work in the same way that domain queries work.
 
As Patrick notes, part of the issue here is the way that registries and
registrars are using (or not using) the features available to them.

-Scott- 

 


________________________________

        From: Steele, Barbara 
        Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:52 PM
        To: Hollenbeck, Scott
        Subject: FW: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] FW: Request for Comments on
IRTP Response
        
        
        Hi Scott,
        Marika is hopeful that you may be able to lend your expertise in
the following area as well.  I believe that this is only one authinfo
code but I could be mistaken on this.  Can you take a look at Marika's
question below and let us know your thoughts on what Patrick has
proposed?  Thanks much.
         
        
        -------------------------------------------------------
        Barbara Steele
        Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
        VeriSign Naming Services
        bsteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx <blocked::mailto:bsteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
        Direct: 703.948.3343
        Mobile: 703.622.1071
        Fax:  703.421.4873
        21345 Ridgetop Circle
        Dulles, VA  20166
        
        
        Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential,
proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for
the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or
disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and
Directory Services.  If you have received this e-mail message in error,
please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and
destroy the original message without making a copy.  Thank you.

         

________________________________

        From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:08 PM
        To: Steele, Barbara
        Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] FW: Request for Comments on
IRTP Response
        
        
        Thanks Barbara. Could you maybe ask Scott as well what his
opinion is of the proposed suggestion by Patrick:
        
        -       'The EPP protocol has a domain:info operation which
reveals all data related to the domain, including the contact IDs of the
registrant. This operation accept[s] an authInfo code, the idea being
that if the registrar doing it is not the current sponsoring registrar
of the domain name, it might still get information on it if it has the
proper authInfocode'. He does note that this would require a policy
change as currently 'some registries allow domain:info done by all
registrars and some do not'. He goes on noting that 'the contact:info
operation works basically the same way [...] with an optional AuthInfo',
but a small issue might be that this is a different AuthInfo code than
the one used in the domain:info operation. According to Mevzek, this
issue could be resolved in a number of ways such as disclosure of the
contact AuthInfo, change of contacts and changing the AuthInfo structure
for the contact. He notes that this option would 'need only minor
technical specification [...] and very little changes in current
software both on registrar and registry sides'.
        
        As said on the call, I have no idea if this is something the
group has already considered, should consider or whether it is not
appropriate for the issue we are looking at. Seeing Scott's expertise in
this area, it might be of interest to get his view on this proposal for
the group to consider.
        
        Thanks,
        
        Marika