RE: [registrars] EPP Discussion

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

--On Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:06 AM +0200 Nikolaj Nyholm 
<nikolajn@ascio.com> wrote:

> I agree that participants have varying backgrounds, but I believe,
> Michael, that you, as constituency president, should be commited to
> setting a certain standard for discussions on this list.
> It is simply fruitless when a list member engages in condemning on
> ambiguous grounds, and we these discussions blossom over and over again.

There is nothing ambiguous about my concern whatsoever.  A registrar was 
granted injunctive relief by a US Court to stop what was alleged to be a 
deceptive marketing campaign.  Getting injunctive relief is not easy. 
There is a very high standard which need be met for a petitioner to get 
that, including (among other criteria) that petitioner has a very high 
probability of success in their claim based upon its merit.  After all that 
there is apparently some question as to whether or not Verisign followed 
the order of the court, as another Registrar had to file another action 
seeking to injoin the same conduct.  This is huge stuff; the industry as a 
whole is damaged as a result of this incident.

Given this very recent history, I expressed a concern that giving data to 
Verisign that could further facilitate this activity is a bad idea.  It's 
not as if this is paranoid.  I was personally amazed and disappointed that 
Verisign, as the market leader and the oldest registrar, did what they did. 
But now that they did, the bar is lowered (and I mean lowered a lot) and 
such concerns, easily dismissed only a few weeks ago, must now be examined 
in the full light of day.

This is not a reflection on any engineer or technical person at Verisign 
GRS nor is it an opinion about the technical merit of the new protocol. 
When we look at technical changes, we look at its impact on the entire 
business.  Nothing in the Verisign GRS customer survey made clear whether 
or not a change to EPP would require registrars to provide their contact 
data.  Given that all the new EEP registries require this there was no 
reason it was clear that such disclosure would not be required.

> I would encourage Jim Archer and every other member of this list, to put
> forward concerns as questions, rather than regular declarations. This
> would allow for a dialogue between parties rather the common trench
> warfare.

Had I known there was an option for a "thin" implementation in the spec, I 
would have asked.  However, my concern remains valid.  This is not just a 
technical concern.  Any major change like this needs to be looked at from 
many sides, not just an engineering one.

> As a sidenote, I might add that we shouldn't forget that one of the main
> contributors to EPP is Scott Hollenbeck at Netsol/Verisign -- he is doing
> a very admirable job.

Scott does a great job and is very responsive.  I am sure he has no 
connection to the deceptive marketing campaign Verisign clearly engaged in. 
Any attempt to twist my comments into a personal attack on Scott is 
disingenuous.

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
>> Sent: 19. juni 2002 23:14
>> To: registrars@dnso.org
>> Subject: [registrars] EPP Discussion
>>
>>
>> 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.



*****************************
Jim Archer, CEO
Registration Technologies, Inc.
10 Crestview Drive
Greenville, RI 02828
voice: 401-949-4768
fax: 401-949-5814
jarcher@RegistrationTek.com
http://www.RegistrationTek.com