To:
"'Hollenbeck, Scott'" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Klaus Malorny'" <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Cc:
<ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>
Date:
Thu, 4 Aug 2005 13:13:00 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07C0AAAF@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AcWYWjGIUl7oVuq4S6S715dJMAV07QAEPnZAACrNdTA=
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] EPP Document Updates
Scott, all, >This is another one of those things that we should really consider removing >(if no one is using it) or revising (if it's not quite right). We should consider re-initiating the provreg group. A number of changes are due in EPP, and enough registries are now using EPP that actual practice has exposed both issues and deviances from the protocol. Further, registries have implemented extensions that, in some cases, make more sense to be part of a standard -- the case of what happened with RGP is relevant here. In the ICANN meeting in Luxembourg, I spoke with a number of gTLD registries, who expressed interest in reviving the group. Specifically, I spoke with GNR, PIR, .TEL, MTLD, VeriSign and NeuStar; presumably direct notes from these registries are forth-coming. Several ccTLD registries also expressed interest in the topic, but did not outright have an opinion on restarting provreg. In light of both changes in practice and interest from practitioners, I would like to ask members of this list to express their opinion and interest in the re-initiation of the provreg group. -Ram -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ram Mohan Chief Technology Officer Vice President, Business Operations Afilias (http://www.afilias.info) p: +1.215.706.5700 x103; f: +1.215.706.5701 m: +1.215.431.0958 e: rmohan@afilias.info --------------------------------------------------------------------------