RE: [EPP-discuss] EPP funktioner / EPP features

From: Tom Sommer - Zitcom A/S <>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:59:50 +0000

I agree. I too was puzzled when I read that section.

We have been sitting at meetings for years, begging for new features and functions to improve the TLD.
The result has been silence, delays, confusion or solutions that does not solve the problems we originally raised (præ-aktivering anyone?).
A half-hearted EPP system that has bugs and missing features. An unwillingness to move away from old technologies to please the few (insecure e-mail registration, anyone?). DK-Hostmaster has proved nothing but ineffective over recent years. Things are killed by bureaucracy and delayed by indecisiveness. It is still all just a lot of talking.

I understand many of the features we request, are a problem because .DK is on a strict sole-registry model.
One "quick" solution, is to grant more power to the registrar (well, "navneserveransvarlige"), power that compare (within limits) to the ones we have in a shared-registry.
It IS possible to run a sole-registry model with these limited extra powers. The customers are still in complete control of their domains. They can still renew and transfer them independently of us, but we also have power to renew their domains and you just bill us instead when we do. Boom, done.
Another solution is obviously to move to the shared-registry model. Despite the possible drawbacks, this model has proven to work. With a strong governing body behind it, there should not be an issue.

Perhaps we need to stop talking about features and start talking about changing the business model. It is possible, .SE did an excellent job.
We backed the sole-registry model back in 2008 when it was up for discussion - this is slowly proving a mistake, one we will not repeat.

Change or be changed.

Tom Sommer
UnoEuro Webhosting
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Larsen [] 
Sent: 19. februar 2014 15:20
Subject: Re: [EPP-discuss] EPP funktioner / EPP features
I don't think this is the email addresses you intended to post:
I have several comments to the paper, but I'm holding back for others to comment first here, but I need to comment this:
"DK Hostmaster has not been provided with a viable business process description for what this feature should do and what would be expected from an implementation." - renew command
Have we, or have we not, several times at the registrar meetings in København and århus the last few years been arguing for this?
nov: 2010
	. Der var et ønske om at registratorerne kunne bruge renew commandoen i EPP, for på denne måde at kunne acceptere fornyelser på et vilkårligt tidspunkt på vegne af registranterne.
maj 2012:
	. Definition af "renew". DK Hostmasters umiddelbare fortolkning af begrebet "renew" havde været "ændring af løbetid fremadrettet". Registratorerne mente at "Renew" omfattede muligheden for at forny et domænenavn. Registratorernes ønske vil indgå i listen over forslag til kommende ændringer i Step 2. DK Hostmaster kunne ikke garantere, at funktionaliteten "renew" blev implementeret som ønsket, men der var tilsagn om at analysere ønsket.
maj 2013:
(København) Der blev spurgt hvornår EPP renew kommandoen og "realtid EPP" vil blive tilgængeligt. DK Hostmaster kan ikke svare på en specifik release dato for EPP renew da det afhænger resultaterne af procesprojektet som stadigvæk kører. Realtid EPP kan først blive lavet når e-mailformularen er afskaffet og at der er lavet en webformular til ansøgninger, plus en udfasningsperiode for e-mailformularen.
Basicly, we have talked extensive about the renew command for 4 years, and now you tell me "DK Hostmaster has not been provided with a viable business process description for what this feature should do and what would be expected from an implementation" ??
I guess it's a translation for "this is too much work for us, we are a sole registry, we rule" ... It makes me tired
Shall we repeat it again?
regards, Peter Larsen - ICANN Accredited registrar
My info:
Company info:
Received on Wed Feb 19 2014 - 16:59:50 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 06 2015 - 11:39:21 CET