Re: [registrars] ORG Redelegation

[Jim Archer <jarcher@registrationtek.com>]

Hi Ram...

Its also important that things like the reports, in particular the transfer 
reports, match the Verisign format.  Like most registrars, we pick up the 
transfer report each day to process outgoing transfers.

Its critically important that the RRP implementation not change.  If we 
have to implement a new RRP them we might as well go to EPP right off.  I 
would prefer to go to an EPP implementation we already support than write a 
modified RRP.

Of course, my preference is to have an RRP that matches Verisign exactly. 
Since you implemented RRP with an "RRP to EPP Bridge" perhaps you could let 
registrars choose RRP or EPP?

As for relaxing, I think getting everything changed and tested to be ready 
for January 1 is going to be extremely challenging.  It may not be doable. 
Certainly some registrars will be able to do it but I think most will 
struggle. This is really unfair.  We really need more time.  I realize this 
directive may come from ICANN, but that does not mean it can be done.

Jim



--On Saturday, November 16, 2002 6:23 PM -0500 Ram Mohan 
<rmohan@afilias.info> wrote:

> paul,
> i'm working with VGRS to (a) ensure that the protocols match, and (b) we
> have a shutdown window.  Things are looking good for both, however, i
> cannot yet commit to it since we've only just begun working with the VGRS
> systems and people.
>
> the same goes for grace periods ... and we're definitely trying to make
> formats match so that things go as smoothly as possible.
>
> at the end of the day, i think registrars were going to have some work,
> regardless of who won .ORG.  in fact, some of the other bids suggested
> going to EPP on day-one, which, in my opinion, would have been a more
> traumatic (and certainly had more variables) at the get-go.
>
> best regards,
> -ram
>
> jim -- take it easy -- we're definitely keeping registrar interests at
> heart, within the constraints of ICANN requirements... we remain open to
> suggestions from registrars.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>
> To: "'Jim Archer'" <jarcher@registrationtek.com>; "Registrars List"
> <Registrars@dnso.org>
> Cc: "Larry Erlich" <erlich@domainregistry.com>; <rmohan@afilias.info>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 5:06 PM
> Subject: RE: [registrars] ORG Redelegation
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>