Re: [registrars] EPP Discussion

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

mike,

all the tld contracts have something in them about EPP, even the other
gTLDs have to rev thir code base to what is specified in the RFC within
135 days of the IESG/RFC editor publishing them as a 'proposed standard'
as described in RFC 2026


-rick



On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> I think the VeriSign EPP discussion has proven useful. I think Jim Archer's
> original comment was a valid concern, and stimulated some lively exchange. I
> myself was not originally aware of the thick/thin EPP variation a couple of
> years ago either. We must remember that the participants on this list have
> varying backgrounds tech, legal, policy, marketing, etc.
>
> My personal belief as to the genesis of the survey lies in VeriSign's
> existing contractual obligation please see Appendix C of the .com registry
> agreement and the recent advances in connection with the adoption of EPP as
> an IETF standard. See relevant excerpt below.
>
> As someone that has spent way too much time reading these contracts, I just
> thought I would like to share this little insight with the rest of the
> community.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-appc-16apr01.htm
> #6
>
> 6. Migration to provreg standard
>
> VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS) is committed to participating in
> and supporting the work of the IETF's provreg working group. VeriSign
> intends to migrate the current Shared Registration System to the new
> standard if: (1) The IETF working group defines a protocol standard; (2) the
> standard can be implemented in a way that minimizes disruption to customers;
> and (3) the standard provides a solution for which the potential advantages
> are reasonably justifiable when weighed against the costs that VGRS and its
> registrar customers would incur in implementing the new standard.
>