Subject: Re: [ire] XML rgpStatus definition

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:23:39 +0900

Le jeudi 22 octobre 2015 à 15:30 +0000, Gould, James a écrit :
> Patrick, 
> 
> 
> Grace periods typically don’t apply across registrar transfers, so 
> why would they apply across registry transfers?  

Because for me the whole purpose of an EBERO is to keep the zone
running, without impacts for registrants.
Also a registrar transfer is something that normally happens under the
instructions of the registrant, while a switch to an EBERO may remain
(and should even remain) completely invisible to end-users.

Imagine a domain that was auto-renewed, and then 5 days later the zone
is transfered to an EBERO. Imagine the end-user did not want to renew
it.
In normal cases the registrar would be able to undo the transaction
because it is in autoRenew grace period. If these periods are removed
during the switch to the EBERO, it means all registrars will be billed
for all domains auto-renewed up to 45 days (typically) before the
switch… even if the end-users did not want to keep the domains.
So potential huge costs for registrars. Or do you think that in the
urgency of the EBERO switch each registrar will do its housekeeping
before leaving the old registry?

Same in another case: involuntarily deletion of domain, then switch to
EBERO. No way to restore the domain name then ?

I'm not saying that things must run like that. I'm saying that it may
make sense in some business model to run like that, and if the
"protocol/infrastructure" permits that (and leave the operators to
decide policy-wise if they want to do it or not) it is better.

> Would the EBERO providers be willing to provide grace period credits
> for transactions they never received funds for?  Going down the path
> of trying to get the grace periods to transfer will lead to a large
> list of issues.  My recommendation is for the grace periods to only be
> applicable within the life of an individual registry, meaning they do
> not transfer upon failure to an EBERO provider or from an EBERO
> provider back to a registry.  

I agree with your train of thoughts. I am just presenting another path
that is not in contradiction to yours.

-- 
Patrick Mevzek

---

From: Patrick Mevzek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:28:25 +0900

Le jeudi 22 octobre 2015 à 17:03 -0400, Christopher Browne a écrit :

> I'm uncomfortable with basing the inclusion/exclusion of grace period
> data based on whether or not a particular registry implementation
> stores or computes it.  That conflates implementation with policy.

This is not what I've written or maybe I was not clear.
I was just saying that if the XML/CSV schema allows (without making it
mandatory) to convey grace periods information, then it is better,
because people are then free to choose to use that option or not.
If the option is not available, then there is no choice (yeah, obvious).

But at the end of the day, it is not a big deal.

> On the other hand, when IRE captures neither transactions nor amounts,
> it seems entirely surprising for it to indicate grace periods.

This is orthogonal for me. Imagine a registry where domain names are
free. You may still need autoRenew periods and deletion grace periods…

> I'd be surprised for an EBERO that is temporarily providing services
> to be interested in getting into offering grace period-based refunds,
> and I'm not sure that fits with the arrangements with ICANN.

This is policy considerations. I was just saying that if the technical
protocol allows this option (one option among others) then it is better.
Other layers would decide if this technical option is put to use or not.

>  Typical grace periods would likely have long expired by the time a
> transition would take place to a more permanent successor operator.

Like the 45 days autoRenew period ?
You think EBERO switches would take more than 45 days ?

-- 
Patrick Mevzek