Re: [registrars] ORG Redelegation

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Jim - your "clear and present danger" is only truly a danger "if" Paul's
supposition that PIR won't listen is accurate. I had a similar conversation
with Ram and I felt reasonably assured that they would do their best to
break as little as possible. Verisign's cooperation, of course, will be the
key to this.

Ram?


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
----- Original Message -----
From: "James W. Archer" <jarcher@registrationtek.com>
To: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>
Cc: "'Jim Archer'" <jarcher@registrationtek.com>; "Registrars List"
<Registrars@dnso.org>; "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>;
<rmohan@afilias.info>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] ORG Redelegation


> That's it.  We're toast.  If they actually break our existing code and
demand
> we write essentially an entire new protocol by January 1, then we are
toast.  A
> few of the biggest tegistrars will maybe get it done.  Any small registrar
that
> misses the deadline won't be able to service their existing ORG customers
(who
> also have other TLD names) and these customers will transfer their names
out.
> If we complain to Afilias and/or PRI, they will waive a spec at us and
tell
> us "sucks to by you."
>
> THIS IS A REAL AND PRESENT THREAT TO OUR EXISTANCE.
>
> I plan to investigate legal action to put a stop and/or delay to this.  If
> anyone in interested in joining me, please contact me off list ASAP.
>
> Jim
>
>
> Quoting Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>:
>
> > At the ICANN meeting in Shaghai, I practically begged Ram to
> > make sure the RRP they build is exactly compatible with
> > *Verisigns* running code, not build it to match the RRP spec.
> > I know for a fact that if they build it to match the IETF RRP RFC,
> > It will break all of the registrar's code.  If that happens we
> > are all in deep do-do, and not just the registrars, PRI too.
> > I assume he is working diligently to make sure it is exactly compatible
> > with the existing verisign code.
> >
> > Some examples of differences:
> > 1) If an invalid option value is submitted with the renew command,
> > Verisign returns an error indicating an invalid attribute value rather
> > than
> > returning invalid option value.
> > 2) Also with the renew command, if one of the so-called required
> > options
> > is missing, Verisign returns error code 509 which is not listed as a
> > valid
> > error return code for the renew command according to the RFC.  So
> > for example with this one change, if PRI returns an error code from the
> > spec
> >
> > it will not be the same one as we are getting now, so our systems will
> > not interpret it correctly.
> >
> > There are a ton more.  If even one return error codes changes, we all
> > will have a lot of work on our hands changing our code,
> > and we'd have to do it quickly.
> >
> > I really hope Ram codes to the existing Verisign system,
> > not to the IETF RRP spec,
> > as they say they are doing at orgtransition.info
> >
> > Oh, yea, all the business logic needs to be the same too,
> > such as the various 5-day, 45-day, no-transfer, etc periods.
> > Plus the downloaded files need to be the same format etc.
> >
> > I agree, that since the price is the same, the "community"
> > didn't get much of a net gain by switching out of Verisign.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@registrationtek.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:52 AM
> > To: Registrars List
> > Cc: Ross Wm. Rader; Larry Erlich
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] ORG Redelegation
> >
> >
> > Hi Ross
> >
> > --On Friday, November 15, 2002 11:30 AM -0500 "Ross Wm. Rader"
> > <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sometimes one can only get what they can take. I'd substantially
> > agree
> > > with Bhavin that decreasing the scope of Verisign's monopoly in the
> > > namespace substantially outweighs the costs and troubles that the
> > dotORG
> > > redelegation will require. I'm not a fan of a thick registry either,
> > but
> > > its the flavor of the month and until there are reasonable
> > alternatives,
> > > I fear that we're stuck with it.
> >
> >
> > Guys, we were completely sandbagged on this!  Completely!  All along, we
> >
> > were told that the ORG redelegation would be very simple for us; all we
> >
> > would need to do is point to a new RRP server.  But that's not what
> > happened.  We are now told that the RRP used by Afilias is
> > "substantially
> > the same" as the RRP used by Verisign, meaning that Afilias is unwilling
> > to
> > commit to making our existing code work.  All the other requirements,
> > the
> > new OTE test, the migration to thick registry, the move to EPP, is all
> > baloney that we never bargained for and is completely ancillary to
> > breaking
> > Verisign's monopoly.  Its one thing to move ORG to a new registry to
> > "break
> > the monopoly," but another to toss in all this other junk along the way.
> >
> > None of this extra work contributes to reducing the monopoly.
> >
> > We don't have to take what we get.  We should have been more involved in
> >
> > this process and fighting it from the beginning to make sure we didn't
> > get
> > hammered, like we are now.  We have no advocate.  More and more, it
> > seems
> > that ICANN does not care what registrars in general and the RC in
> > particular have to say.  We have problems too.  Most of us are small
> > companies, but even big companies have to expend resources on this.
> > Those
> > resources are better spent elsewhere.
> >
> > As for Verisign having their monopoly reduced, PRI now has the monopoly.
> >
> > Both Verisign and PRI are regulated and either way, we pay $6.00.  PRI
> > has
> > to operate under rules just as Verisign did and we still have to pay
> > $6.00.
> > So tell me, other than general principle, how does anyone benefit from
> > moving the monopoly to PRI?  For myself, I wanted to see Verisign keep
> > ORG.
> > They still have by far the best tech support and their systems are still
> >
> > the most reliable from our end.  I don't agree that anyone benefits from
> >
> > this.  I know my company and customers do not.
> >
> >