Re: Registry lock - two-factor or intervention

On 9/19/13 5:34 AM, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
> Just wanted to state that ICANN gTLD's are not the only norm. This is
> an IETF mailinglist. The IETF create standards, not ICANN contracts.

As one of the original cabal, I believe you are mistaken.

The contributors to the pre-IETF effort sought to create, without
liability under U.S. law (Sherman Act, anti-trust/competition policy
generally)


So, evaluating your lines quoted above:

1. The design constraints of the contributors to the specification
published as the work product(s) of the PROVREG Working Group did not
include registries other than those usually described as "generic" or
"sponsored".

I think most of those involved in provisioning and the consequences of
provisioning (see for example Dan York's note on DNSSEC uptake) share
a view that a single provisioning mechanism that is indifferent to
whether a registry is associated with a direct delegation from the
IANA root, or pre-exists the PROVREG WG work product, or even used a
"shared access" model (whether the "shared access" is implemented in
the "registrar" function or the "registry" function) is preferable,
absent extenuating circumstances, to two or more substantively
distinct specifications.

If there is a "norm" it is tolerance.

2. The [email protected] is the continued-as-a-convenience vehicle for
communication of the implementers of the specifications published by
the concluded PROVREG Working Group, archived and possibly subject to
the same, and/or subsequent NOTE WELL conditions, of the mailing list
prior to the conclusion of the PROVREG Working Group.

The beneficiaries of the mailing list are not limited to the
contributors to the PROVREG Working Group work product. Others are
free to adopt, with or without modification, our specifications.

3. The purpose of the original contributors who formed the PROVREG
Working Group and who's work product has been repeatedly published by
the IETF, was to create a specification to be made
manditory-to-implement by parties entering into registry or registrar
contracts with ICANN, without incurring liabilities (supra).

Recall, at the period, the IETF formed part of the Protocol Supporting
Organization (PSO), an ICANN ByLaws entity.

Note also, use by competitors of "standards bodies" to publish
specifications without incurring liabilities under competition policy
laws is a broadly established practice.

I repeat, tolerance is useful, and as Michale pointed out, some
hundreds (eventually thousands) of EPP (client, or server, or both)
operators appear to lack, for the moment, a means to provide third
parties with {write|lock} access to the underlying data.

The problem is not likely to be solved, IMHO, by assertion that it
does not exist.

Eric
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg