Re: [ire] XML rgpStatus definition

[Christopher Browne <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Le jeudi 22 octobre 2015 à 14:44 +0000, Gould, James a écrit :
> > Will the gaining registry operator really provide grace period
> > credits?  It would be interesting to hear from the EBERO providers
> > what they will or should support related to grace periods and
> > credits.  Grace periods is not persisted in our registries and is not
> > applicable for escrow.
>
> I agree with you that it (storing or recomputing) is a local decision
> by each registry.
> We may overthink the problem right now because indeed it depends on
> what the EBERO will do for domains concerned by grace periods.
> And that case has not been seen yet AFAIK.
>
> However, if there is no dates in the escrow at all, it makes it
> impossible or very difficult for EBEROs to apply refunds (if they want
> to do it of course), while if it is optionally in the escrow (and up to
> the registry generating the escrow to provide it or now), then EBEROs
> who want to do it can do it (and the others would not care about this
> piece of data).
>

I'm uncomfortable with basing the inclusion/exclusion of grace period data
based on whether or not a particular registry implementation stores or
computes it.  That conflates implementation with policy.

On the other hand, when IRE captures neither transactions nor amounts, it
seems entirely surprising for it to indicate grace periods.

I'd be surprised for an EBERO that is temporarily providing services to be
interested in getting into offering grace period-based refunds, and I'm not
sure that fits with the arrangements with ICANN.   Typical grace periods
would likely have long expired by the time a transition would take place to
a more permanent successor operator.