Re: EPP Document Updates

I'm OK with that

--eugenio (.PT)


Ram Mohan wrote:

>Scott, all,
>  
>
>>This is another one of those things that we should really consider removing
>>(if no one is using it) or revising (if it's not quite right).
>>    
>>
>
>We should consider re-initiating the provreg group.  A number of changes are
>due in EPP, and enough registries are now using EPP that actual practice has
>exposed both issues and deviances from the protocol.  Further, registries
>have implemented extensions that, in some cases, make more sense to be part
>of a standard -- the case of what happened with RGP is relevant here.
>
>In the ICANN meeting in Luxembourg, I spoke with a number of gTLD
>registries, who expressed interest in reviving the group.  Specifically, I
>spoke with GNR, PIR, .TEL, MTLD, VeriSign and NeuStar; presumably direct
>notes from these registries are forth-coming.  Several ccTLD registries also
>expressed interest in the topic, but did not outright have an opinion on
>restarting provreg.
>
>In light of both changes in practice and interest from practitioners, I
>would like to ask members of this list to express their opinion and interest
>in the re-initiation of the provreg group.
>
>-Ram
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ram Mohan
>Chief Technology Officer
>Vice President, Business Operations
>Afilias (http://www.afilias.info)
>p: +1.215.706.5700 x103; f: +1.215.706.5701
>m: +1.215.431.0958
>e: [email protected]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>