Re: EPP host renames

Hi Chris

The problem with the solutions you discussed is exactly what you stated, it involves cross registrar behaviour. 

Solution A is probably more tenable but still leaves the registry with another mass function which has its own risks.

At least the current situation causes registrar a and b to cooperate. This is a corner case that doesn't crop up often.





Michael Young

M:647-289-1220

On 2012-12-19, at 14:43, Christopher Browne <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Michael Young <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not sure why you are solving a dispute between two registrars.
>> 
>> Currently registrar a contacts registrar b and complains. Registrar b disassociates the host object regardless of the fact the registrant went silent. Why? Because in all likelihood it's the same registrant behind both domains at two different registrars and they are ultimately responsible for managing their domains. If its actually two separate registrants with no relation, then registrar b has absolutely no reason not to remove the association.
>> 
>> This comes down to registrars and registrants doing their part as well AND well constructed RRAs in all parties joint interests.
> 
> While the EPP standard doesn't speak specifically to this, it's pretty
> reasonable to consider that the registrant that holds the domain is
> intended to exercise control over the attendant zone.
> 
> We've done some agonizing over this, sadly not arriving at answers
> that were sufficiently clear to assert as public policy, but here are
> some thoughts...
> 
> It would seem reasonable that child hosts should always be modifyable
> by the registrar owning the parent domain, or, (my preference), owned
> by that registrar.
> That would have the consequence that child hosts could at the very
> least be put on clientHold.
> 
> Also possible would be to consider that Registrar A should be able to either:
> a) Delete the child hosts, which would have the "cascade" effect of
> removing references from other registrars' domains, or
> b) Be allowed to submit <domain:update> requests specifically to
> remove child hosts from other registrars' domains.
> 
> These possible policies all cross inter-registrar boundaries, but if
> the registrant, as customer of Registrar a, is supposed to exercise
> control over the zone defined by the domain, while they may not be
> documented scenarios in the EPP RFCs, they are still at least
> plausibly appropriate.
> 
> The current state of affairs is troublesome, leaving dealing with this
> to some out-of-band communications.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg