<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-irtpc] Recommendation Charter Question C
- To: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "Paul Diaz" <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpc] Recommendation Charter Question C
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:27:36 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>May I suggest we add the word "also" in the last sentence
for iron-clad clarity (see below)?<br></div><div><br></div><div><i>The WG
recommends that all gTLD Registry Operators be required to publish the
Registrar of Record's IANA ID in the TLD's thick WHOIS. Existing gTLD Registry
operators that currently use proprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they
must also publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID. [This recommendation
should not prevent the use of proprietary IDs by gTLD Registry Operators for
other purposes, as long as the Registrar of Record's IANA ID is <b>_also_</b>
published in the TLD's thick
Whois]. </i></div><div><span><br></span></div><div>Thanks---</div><div><br>J.</div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpc] Recommendation Charter Question C<br>
From: Marika Konings <<a
href="mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx";>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Tue, May 29, 2012 12:22 pm<br>
To: Paul Diaz <<a href="mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxx";>pdiaz@xxxxxxx</a>>, "Mike
O'Connor" <<a href="mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx";>mike@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Cc: IRTPC Working Group <<a
href="mailto:gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<div>If I've understood the comments on the call today correctly, I think the
main concern with the proposed language by the RySG was that it seemed to
suggest that new registries should not be allowed to use proprietary IDs, which
I don't think was the intent of the RySG or the WG (but please correct me if I
am wrong). If this assessment is correct, a possible solution could be to add
one sentence to the language proposed by the RySG (in between brackets and
bold):</div><div><br></div><div>The WG recommends that all gTLD Registry
Operators be required to publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID in the TLD's
thick WHOIS. Existing gTLD Registry operators that currently use proprietary
IDs can continue to do so, but they must also publish the Registrar of Record's
IANA ID. [<b>This recommendation should not prevent the use of proprietary IDs
by gTLD Registry Operators for other purposes, as long as the Registrar of
Record's IANA ID is published in the TLD's thick
Whois</b>]. </div><div><br></div><div>Does this make
sense?</div><div><br></div><div>Best
regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Marika</div><div><br></div><div>On 29/05/12
18:30, "Paul Diaz" <<a target="_blank"
href="mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxx";>pdiaz@xxxxxxx</a>>
wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE"
style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0
5;"><div><br></div><div>Just get to the crux of the
matter:</div><div><br></div><div>The WG recommends that all gTLD Registry
Operators be required to publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID as a
distinct field in the TLD's thick WHOIS. Existing gTLD Registry
operators that currently use prorprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they
must also publish the Registrar of Record's IANA
ID.</div><div><br></div><div>Proprietary IDs are used by a number of Registry
Operator for essential back-end operations. "Encouraging" the
"exclusive use" of IANA IDs (in place of the proprietary numbers) is NOT in
this WG's remit as it would effectively be dictating a business
model.</div><div><br></div><div>The WG is charged with looking into ways to to
facilitate transfers and save Registrars the extra step of having to look up
the proprietary IDs? Ok. Then just require that the IANA
ID has to be clearly published in the thick Whois output. Other
fields not connected to the transfer process are of no consequence to this
WG.</div><div><br></div><div>If anything, "proprietary IDs" are going to be
even more commonplace when new gTLDs come to market as the finite pool of
back-end operators will need unique ways of tracking registration partners for
the various TLDs under their management.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,
P</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On May 29, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Mike
O'Connor wrote:</div><div><br></div><div>here's a go at the Charter Question C
stuff</div><div><br></div><div>PREVIOUS TEXT: Recommendation Charter
Question C: the WG recommends that new Registries standardize onIANA IDs. The
WG also recommends that existing Registries that currently use proprietary IDs
switch to use IANA IDs, but these Registries will be allowed to maintain the
option to continue to use their proprietary IDs. Finally the WG recommends that
the option to maintain the use of proprietary IDs be reviewed in 24 months and
reconsidered at that point in time.</div><div><br></div><div>PROPOSED
TEXT: Recommendation Charter Question C: the WG recommends that new
gTLD Registry Operators standardize on IANA IDs and that all Registry Operators
must publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID. The WG encourages existing
Registry Operators that currently use proprietary IDS to consider transitioning
to the exclusive use of IANA IDs, but notes that there are operational issues
that may make this very difficult. Thus Registry Operators that
currently use proprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they must also publish
the Registrar of Record's IANA
ID.</div><div><br></div><div>mikey</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>- -
- - - - - - -</div><div>phone 651-647-6109</div><div>fax
866-280-2356</div><div>web <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.haven2.com%3Chttp://www.haven2.com/%3E";>http://www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/></a><br
mce_bogus="1"></div><div>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter,
Facebook, Google,
etc.)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|