[registrars] thick RRP client

["Ivan Vachovsky" <ivan@abac.com>]

Fellow Registrars,


1. We are developing the RRP client for the new gTLD .info. Our developers
are reporting that we are going to send ALL customer details to the
Registry.

I remember that the prevailing opinion in Marina Del Ray meetings last Fall
was towards the thick RRP client. Can someone refresh my memory what were
the advantages of this solution?

Anyone concerned about passing his full customer's information to the
Registry?

Are we protected against abuse/leak of this information by the Registry,
voluntarily, by accident or subject to sniffers?

2. Why ICANN does not step in and request the Registries to standardize on
the RRP protocol? It appears now that each and every Registry will be using
different protocol (or at least different flavor of the same protocol )
making the life of the Registrars miserable? We have had hard time managing
just one single relation with Verisign (numerous problems). Can you imagine
this multiplied 5x times. Also the new registries will be definitely less
experienced (at least in the beginning ). Any input on this?

Best regards,
----------------------------------------------
Ivan Vachovsky,
CEO
Names4Ever






----- Original Message -----
From: "Werner Staub (CORE Secretariat)" <secretariat@corenic.org>
To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
Cc: <registrars@dnso.org>; <secretariat@corenic.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Draft Letter


> Hi Mike,
>
> Great job. I know everything cannot be said in a letter, but
> I find that the following facts ought to be stated:
>
> 1) The transfer procedure has been designed *by* Verisign,
>    including all the rules shown in the letter.
>
> 2) If the registry were not related to the largest registrar,
>    it would have reformed the transfer procedure rather than
>    allowing a registrar to unilaterally deform it.
>
> 3) The remedies proposed by Verisign are designed to further
>    increase the cost of transfers as a barrier against competition.
>
> 4) We ask Verisign to discontinue the auto-nack methods *immediately*,
>    All registrars are willing to work on improving the transfer
>    framework with low cost and high security as objectives.
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
>
> "Michael D. Palage" a *crit :
> >
> > Attached please find the proposed letter to Stuart drafted in accordance
> > with the discussion during yesterday's teleconference and which the
> > Constituency proposes sending to ICANN. I believe that the letter
achieves
> > the objectives stated in our teleconference yesterday. Please provide
any
> > comments to the letter during the next 24 hours so that I can submit it
to
> > ICANN ASAP. This letter is important to the ongoing consensus building
> > efforts that the Constituency has undertaken and I urge all member to
review
> > this letter closely.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Michael D. Palage
> >
> >                             Name: Registrars-July24.doc
> >    Registrars-July24.doc    Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
> >                         Encoding: base64