Subject: [provreg] Are escrow deposit files per-TLD, or per-registry operator?

From: Seth Goldman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:42:13 -0400

In the case of a registry operator who operates multiple TLDs in a single
database, are the escrow deposit files intended to be per-TLD? Or
per-registry operator?

My suspicion is that it should be the latter. The entire reason for the
escrow deposit to exist is to transition to an EBERO in the event that a
registry operator is unable to perform its duties. That could happen on a
per-TLD basis, but it would be a lot more efficient to do it for *all* TLDs
that are managed by that registry operator.

So if that is the case, what are we to make of the escrow deposit file
naming convention?

Files will be named according to the following convention:

> {gTLD}_{YYYY-MM-DD}_{type}_S{#}_R{rev}.{ext} where:
> 5.1 {gTLD} is replaced with the gTLD name; in case of an IDN-TLD, the
> ASCII-compatible form
> (A-Label) must be used;

If there is a single escrow file with multiple TLDs embedded in it, what
would you use for "{gTLD}"? Is the assumption that all TLDs will be stored
in totally separate databases? Or that they should be written to separate
files, even if stored in the same database? That would mean that shared
objects (e.g. contacts, hosts, etc.) would have to be written multiple
times. That seems less than ideal.

---

From: "Gould, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:47:25 +0000

Seth,

You might want to post this to the Internet Registration Escrow (IRE) list ( https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ire ).  My understanding is that the deposits are per-TLD and not per registry operator.

--

JG

James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[email-masked]

703-948-3271 (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com

From: Seth Goldman <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 4:42 PM
To: EPP Provreg <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [provreg] Are escrow deposit files per-TLD, or per-registry operator?

In the case of a registry operator who operates multiple TLDs in a single database, are the escrow deposit files intended to be per-TLD? Or per-registry operator?

My suspicion is that it should be the latter. The entire reason for the escrow deposit to exist is to transition to an EBERO in the event that a registry operator is unable to perform its duties. That could happen on a per-TLD basis, but it would be a lot more efficient to do it for *all* TLDs that are managed by that registry operator.

So if that is the case, what are we to make of the escrow deposit file naming convention?

{gTLD}_{YYYY-MM-DD}_{type}_S{#}_R{rev}.{ext} where:
5.1 {gTLD} is replaced with the gTLD name; in case of an IDN-TLD, the ASCII-compatible form
(A-Label) must be used;

If there is a single escrow file with multiple TLDs embedded in it, what would you use for "{gTLD}"? Is the assumption that all TLDs will be stored in totally separate databases? Or that they should be written to separate files, even if stored in the same database? That would mean that shared objects (e.g. contacts, hosts, etc.) would have to be written multiple times. That seems less than ideal.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:49:03 -0400

> that are managed by that registry operator.

But a single file would entail that all the registries move _en masse_
to a single new operator -- an assumption that is pretty brittle.  If
you have one escrow file per escrowed zone, you can always put them
together.  If you have one big file, it's work to take them apart.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Christopher Browne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:51:26 -0400

Those seem like pretty good questions.

That said, while an aspect of efficiency could be gained by avoiding the
need to write out shared objects multiple times, this involves the
assumption that all of the TLDs would be passed on together as a single
"block."

If there is reason to imagine that the TLDs could be passed on
individually, then combining the data would be pretty hazardous, both
technically, and, I'd think more hazardous, legally.

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:55:32 -0700

On 6/18/13 1:42 PM, Seth Goldman wrote:
> In the case of a registry operator who operates multiple TLDs in a
> single database, are the escrow deposit files intended to be per-TLD?
> Or per-registry operator?
> 
> My suspicion is that it should be the latter. The entire reason for
> the escrow deposit to exist is to transition to an EBERO in the event
> that a registry operator is unable to perform its duties. That could
> happen on a per-TLD basis, but it would be a lot more efficient to do
> it for *all* TLDs that are managed by that registry operator.
> 

While sensible, at no point during the multi-year struggle to impart
sense into the DAG was any argument for any means of recognizing two
or more applications "communicated" (had same applicants, used same
backends, liked the same wine, ...) successful.

I wouldn't gamble that escrow can be "bundled" or that any other
operational activity that exists in contractual form can be, from
insurance to continuity instrument to ... failover flavor preference.

Failure is a property of the registry operator, which in our refined
parlance means the two or three clowns who managed to get a piece of
paper past ICANN legal, who may run out of money or be found to be
sudden guests of the United States (my favorite form of incapacity,
see the Brothers Elashi and the .iq saga, at a google near you), or
encounter some other trigger condition.

YMMV, of course.
Eric

---

From: MICHAEL YOUNG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:58:56 -0400

I agree with Andrew on this.

-Michael Young

On 2013-06-18, at 4:49 PM, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> provreg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg

MICHAEL YOUNG
[email-masked]

---

From: MICHAEL YOUNG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:01:26 -0400

Sure Chris, an example would be what if one TLD has a set of extensions the other one doesn't? Makes a single block much more complicated to manage.

Also what if a registry operator uses the escrow file as part of their transition efforts for a single TLD out of several in a non-emergency situation? (As in a sale,....)

-Michael

On 2013-06-18, at 4:51 PM, Christopher Browne <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That said, while an aspect of efficiency could be gained by avoiding the need to write out shared objects multiple times, this involves the assumption that all of the TLDs would be passed on together as a single "block."
> 
> If there is reason to imagine that the TLDs could be passed on individually, then combining the data would be pretty hazardous, both technically, and, I'd think more hazardous, legally.

MICHAEL YOUNG
[email-masked]