Re: [registrars] ORG Redelegation

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Jim,

I intend to take the same code and test it in both afilias and vgrs ot&e
environements.

I'm sure afilias would enjoy any feedback registrars learn as we move
through this process.

-rick

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Jim Archer wrote:

> 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.
> >>
> >>
>
>