Re: Conformance with ICANN Redemption Grace Periods

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>]

Scott,
Thanks for the clarfication.

My understanding was that if we have to add a new status value for a domain
object it cannot be done
within the EPP extension framework -- don't the EPP spec and xml schema
definition have to be
modified ?

(see extract from the redemption grace period proposal below)
> > Accordingly, under the proposal, a registry Whois check on a
> > name that is within the Delete Pending Period would return at least the
following
> > information:
> >
> >   Domain Name: example.com
> >   Sponsoring Registrar: exampleregistrar.com
> >   Domain Status: DELETE PENDING PERIOD
> >   Delete Requested: 31-may-2002

-Ram
--------------------------------------------------------
ram mohan/cto/afilias.info
p: +1-215-706-5700; f: +1-215-706-5701
e: rmohan@afilias.info
--------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "'Ram Mohan'" <rmohan@afilias.info>; <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 6:20 PM
Subject: RE: Conformance with ICANN Redemption Grace Periods


> Protocol extension if needed for ICANN registries.  It's certainly not a
> general-purpose feature that should be added to the core protocol.
>
> -Scott-
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ram Mohan [mailto:rmohan@afilias.info]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:20 PM
> > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
> > Subject: Conformance with ICANN Redemption Grace Periods
> >
> >
> > Scott,
> > As you may have noticed, in the Bucharest ICANN meeting, the
> > Board resolved
> > to have registries adopt the proposed Redemption Grace Period
> > (http://www.icann.org/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm) policy.
> >
> > Embedded in the document are the following, which may have an
> > impact on EPP.
> > I forward to provreg to determine if any of these need to be
> > factored into
> > our thinking.  (New capability, may or may not need a
> > command; new domain
> > status if agreed to, will require some remapping)
> >
> > -ram
> > >>Creation of New "RESTORE" Capability
> >
> > The Technical Steering Group proposes the creation of a new "RESTORE"
> > capability that can be provided by a registry to registrars
> > via one or more
> > of the following methods: a modification of the
> > registry/registrar protocol,
> > an administration website, a fax service, or a telephone service. The
> > RESTORE capability will only affect names that are within the
> > Delete Pending
> > Period. In other words, all RESTORE requests for names not in
> > the Delete
> > Pending Period will be ignored.
> >
> > >> Registry Transparency Requirements for Deleted Names
> >
> > In order to ensure fairness to all registrants and
> > registrars, the Technical
> > Steering Group proposes that deleted and restored names
> > should be handled as
> > openly and transparently as feasible. Original registrants
> > and those wishing
> > to be "next in line" to register a name that is being deleted
> > should be able
> > to tell when a name was deleted and when it will be "returned
> > to the pool"
> > of names available for registration.
> >
> > Accordingly, under the proposal, a registry Whois check on a
> > name that is
> > within the Delete Pending Period would return at least the following
> > information:
> >
> >   Domain Name: example.com
> >   Sponsoring Registrar: exampleregistrar.com
> >   Domain Status: DELETE PENDING PERIOD
> >   Delete Requested: 31-may-2002