RE: [registrars] ORG Redelegation

[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.