Re: Comments on EPP at the Registrars Constituency

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Morning Paul,

It is true we could build restrictions into the protocol, however we haven't.
It is true that registries, and registrars, can both extend EPP, as well as
define registry-specific (aka "registry private"), and registrar-specific
(aka "registrar private") operational practices. Both of these are outside of
the protocol. The utility, or necessity, of using, or avoiding iso3166 labels,
or ICANN inherited or created labels, anywhere in the dns, is something which
ccTLD and gTLD operators are likely to have differing views on.

I suppose it is worth pointing out that this working group is conducted under
the rules of the IETF. The contributors to the working group chose to work in
this venue, with co-chairs selected by the IESG, process defined by rfc2026,
last calls, etc. There is no institutional relationship between this working
group and ICANN, its (generic and sponsored) Registrars Constituency, its 
Country Code (registrars and registries) Constituency, within its Domain Name
Supporting Organization, or with its Address Supporting Organization, nor
yet with its Protocol Supporting Organization, except through a MOU (rfc2690).

Our work product _might_ be useful for gTLD operators and their customer
facing partners, as contributors include people with day-jobs at the gTLDs
and a few registrars. Alternatives do exist for specific gTLDs. Our protocol
might also be useful for a larger set of "domain name" registries, of which 
the ccTLDs, and general SLDs are potential beneficiaries. The .AU ccTLD has
announced policy in this area. Our protocol even might be useful for a set
of registries that include "address" as well as "domain name" registries.

The only reference to ENUM is in Scott's draft, which may be accepted as a
working group document by the ENUM working group. It is the author's choice
which Area, and with working group within an area, or to no working group,
to submit a draft. We do reference e164 idenifiers, but I suspect that is not
what you had in mind.

I can't comment on ICANN Registrar meetings, while I participated in the
Stockholm and Montevideo meetings, I did not participate in the Marina del
Rey ICANN meeting, except incidently.

Cheers,
Eric