Re: Standard Extensions

On 19/01/12 16:21, Edward Lewis wrote:

> At 1:10 +0100 1/19/12, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
> 
>> First and foremost, finding an incentive for current registry
>> operators to implement those extensions instead of their own
>> proprietary, otherwise we will just have even more extensions and even
>> less consolidations.
>> To me, it looks more difficult and more important, than creating the
>> extensions themselves.

That reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/927/

> I think that is a very important point.  In Oct 2009 I began a short look into
> EPP 2 after comments at a CENTR Tech meeting.  There was a "bar bof" at the
> IETF in March 2010 and a follow up discussion at the CENTR Tech meeting in May
> 2010.  (Dates given to set date context.) At the follow up, the consensus was
> that the cost to upgrade from an EPP 1 to an EPP 2 was not worth any perceived
> benefit.
> 
> I'm not saying there will never be a need for EPP 2 but Patrick is very
> right.  We have to justify the move to an upgraded EPP, not just define a new
> EPP version.  Analogously, DNSSEC stalled until Kaminsky's work increased the
> "perceived benefit".

Any new extension or object mappings we come up with do have one advantage
given ICANN's new gTLD program. ccTLDs and gTLDs differ in that ccTLDs have
captive national audiences and can largely do what they like. gTLDs are
different: as they're global, they lack the inherent registrant audience of a
new ccTLD would have. Thus any new gTLD is going to be competing with other
new gTLDs for registrar mindshare. Speaking as a registrar, we're more likely
to integrate our systems with registries that require less work no our part,
thus fewer proprietary extension and object mappings they have, the more
likely a registrar is to go to the trouble of integrating their systems.
That's our "perceived benefit". It's the same reason incumbents in the gTLD
arena have a built-in advantage: registrars will likely have already
implemented their proprietary extensions, so the barriers to integration are
lower.

Of course, things are going to be a bit more complex than that, and ease of
integration isn't the only factor that's going to sway which new gTLDs
registrars deal with, but it's a powerful incentive nonetheless.

K.

-- 
Keith Gaughan, Senior Developer
PGP/GPG key ID: 3E896381
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd. <http://blacknight.com/>
12A Barrowside Business Park, Carlow, Ireland
Registered in Ireland, Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg