Re: {Disarmed} RE: [gnso-irtpc] Recommendation Charter Question C

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris / Marika

If as a registrar I can access something that I can parse into something 
meaningful then a lot of my issues with IDs vanish.

So whether it's in WHOIS or in communications being able to convert it into 
something that both our own staff and our registrants can relate to will remove 
a pain point.

Barbara did raise an interesting issue today about registries that run both cc 
and g registry operations and it was a valid one.

Ultimately from my personal perspective it boils down to getting meaningful 
messages / info that we can use to communicate effectively.

Regards

Michele


On 29 May 2012, at 18:31, Chris Chaplow wrote:

> Hi All,
>  
> We are gettingthere
>  
> But it is not just about publish in the thick whois, it is also about 
> communications and transfer requests.
> Remember Michele story of email  of xfer request  to registrar SDFRT2345  
>  
> The IANA id should be the one primarily referred to in any external message.
>  
> Internally  is their own choice.
>  
>  
> Chris Chaplow
> Managing Director
> Andalucia.com S.L.
> Avenida del Carmen 9
> Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
> 1ª Planta, Oficina 30
> Estepona, 29680
> Malaga, Spain
> Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
> Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
> E-mail: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Web: www.andalucia.com
> Information about Andalucia, Spain.
>  
> De: owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre 
> de Marika Konings
> Enviado el: martes, 29 de mayo de 2012 19:22
> Para: Paul Diaz; Mike O'Connor
> CC: IRTPC Working Group
> Asunto: Re: [gnso-irtpc] Recommendation Charter Question C
>  
> 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):
>  
> 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 
> published in the TLD's thick Whois]. 
>  
> Does this make sense?
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Marika
>  
> On 29/05/12 18:30, "Paul Diaz" <pdiaz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>  
> Just get to the crux of the matter:
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> Best, P
>  
>  
> On May 29, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>  
> here's a go at the Charter Question C stuff
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone  651-647-6109
> fax   866-280-2356
> web  MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from 
> "www.haven2.com<="" b=""> http://www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
>  
>  
>  
>  

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845