From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Mon Feb 3 23:57:21 2014 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:57:21 -0800 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 Message-ID: Greetings IRTP-C Implementation Review Team, The next IRTP C IRT Call will be held Wednesday 12 February 2014 at 1500 UTC. ICANN staff has begun work on IRTP C Recommendation 2 (time limiting of FOAs), and I have included a draft of the revised IRTP. We can discuss the revised IRTP on our next call. Please find details for the call below. Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 Time: (in UTC): 1500 UTC Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Revised Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy IRTPC2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 108910 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5050 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mike at haven2.com Tue Feb 4 02:46:00 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:46:00 -0600 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6FAE77AC-C7ED-48FE-929E-62A886A45FFF@haven2.com> argh. that?s an exact conflict with the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement standing meeting. any chance of bumping this one forward or backward an hour? or forward or backward a week? mikey On Feb 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > Greetings IRTP-C Implementation Review Team, > > The next IRTP C IRT Call will be held Wednesday 12 February 2014 at 1500 UTC. > > ICANN staff has begun work on IRTP C Recommendation 2 (time limiting of FOAs), and I have included a draft of the revised IRTP. We can discuss the revised IRTP on our next call. > > Please find details for the call below. > > Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting > Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 > Time: (in UTC): 1500 UTC > > > Adigo code: 28462745 > > Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ > Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin Tubergen > Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager > ICANN > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Wed Feb 5 16:50:44 2014 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 08:50:44 -0800 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting Invitation Take 2: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 Message-ID: Thank you for letting me know about your other call, Mikey and Chris. I apologize for the double-booking; the Advisory Group Call was not published on the GNSO calendar. I have moved the call back one hour to accommodate the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement group members. Please find the new details below: Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 Time: (in UTC): 1600 UTC Estimated duration: 60min Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Please take a look at the attached document, which incorporates IRTP C Rec. 2, before the call. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN From: Chris Chaplow Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:59 AM To: 'Mike O'Connor' , Caitlin Tubergen Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 That would help, if possible. I have same conflict as Mikey. Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1? Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris at andalucia.com Web: www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] En nombre de Mike O'Connor Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 3:46 Para: Caitlin Tubergen CC: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Asunto: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 argh. that?s an exact conflict with the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement standing meeting. any chance of bumping this one forward or backward an hour? or forward or backward a week? mikey On Feb 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: Greetings IRTP-C Implementation Review Team, The next IRTP C IRT Call will be held Wednesday 12 February 2014 at 1500 UTC. ICANN staff has begun work on IRTP C Recommendation 2 (time limiting of FOAs), and I have included a draft of the revised IRTP. We can discuss the revised IRTP on our next call. Please find details for the call below. Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 Time: (in UTC): 1500 UTC Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Edited IRTP C Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy .docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 108878 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5050 bytes Desc: not available URL: From BKnight at verisign.com Wed Feb 5 17:51:21 2014 From: BKnight at verisign.com (Knight, Barbara) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:51:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: Meeting Invitation Take 2: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF41584C2D4C@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Caitlin, Unfortunately, I am not available at the earlier time. I will review any minutes or the recording (if it will be recorded) and let you know if I have any feedback. Thanks much. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 11:51 AM To: Chris Chaplow; 'Mike O'Connor' Cc: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting Invitation Take 2: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 Thank you for letting me know about your other call, Mikey and Chris. I apologize for the double-booking; the Advisory Group Call was not published on the GNSO calendar. I have moved the call back one hour to accommodate the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement group members. Please find the new details below: Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 Time: (in UTC): 1600 UTC Estimated duration: 60min Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Please take a look at the attached document, which incorporates IRTP C Rec. 2, before the call. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN From: Chris Chaplow > Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:59 AM To: 'Mike O'Connor' >, Caitlin Tubergen > Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 That would help, if possible. I have same conflict as Mikey. Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1? Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris at andalucia.com Web: www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] En nombre de Mike O'Connor Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 3:46 Para: Caitlin Tubergen CC: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Asunto: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 argh. that's an exact conflict with the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement standing meeting. any chance of bumping this one forward or backward an hour? or forward or backward a week? mikey On Feb 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: Greetings IRTP-C Implementation Review Team, The next IRTP C IRT Call will be held Wednesday 12 February 2014 at 1500 UTC. ICANN staff has begun work on IRTP C Recommendation 2 (time limiting of FOAs), and I have included a draft of the revised IRTP. We can discuss the revised IRTP on our next call. Please find details for the call below. Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 Time: (in UTC): 1500 UTC Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Fri Feb 7 15:04:10 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:04:10 -0600 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Re: Meeting Invitation Take 2: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6D758C69-A601-4196-811F-0A37B7CDC9D2@haven2.com> thanks Caitlin. mikey On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > Thank you for letting me know about your other call, Mikey and Chris. I apologize for the double-booking; the Advisory Group Call was not published on the GNSO calendar. > > I have moved the call back one hour to accommodate the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement group members. > > Please find the new details below: > > Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting > Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 > Time: (in UTC): 1600 UTC > Estimated duration: 60min > > Adigo code: 28462745 > > Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ > > > Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ > > Please take a look at the attached document, which incorporates IRTP C Rec. 2, before the call. > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin Tubergen > Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager > ICANN > > > > > From: Chris Chaplow > Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:59 AM > To: 'Mike O'Connor' , Caitlin Tubergen > Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 > > That would help, if possible. I have same conflict as Mikey. > > Chris Chaplow > Managing Director > Andalucia.com S.L. > Avenida del Carmen 9 > Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo > 1? Planta, Oficina 30 > Estepona, 29680 > Malaga, Spain > Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 > Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 > E-mail: chris at andalucia.com > Web: www.andalucia.com > Information about Andalucia, Spain. > > De: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] En nombre de Mike O'Connor > Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 3:46 > Para: Caitlin Tubergen > CC: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Asunto: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 > > argh. > > that?s an exact conflict with the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement standing meeting. any chance of bumping this one forward or backward an hour? or forward or backward a week? > > mikey > > > On Feb 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > > > Greetings IRTP-C Implementation Review Team, > > The next IRTP C IRT Call will be held Wednesday 12 February 2014 at 1500 UTC. > > ICANN staff has begun work on IRTP C Recommendation 2 (time limiting of FOAs), and I have included a draft of the revised IRTP. We can discuss the revised IRTP on our next call. > > Please find details for the call below. > > Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting > Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 > Time: (in UTC): 1500 UTC > > > Adigo code: 28462745 > > Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ > Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin Tubergen > Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager > ICANN > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Feb 12 22:44:26 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:44:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Message-ID: Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Wed Feb 12 22:53:01 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:53:01 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? In-Reply-To: <20140212224528.2E03D33C04D@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20140212224528.2E03D33C04D@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Sorry I missed the call James: 1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both? 2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Feb 12 23:01:48 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:01:48 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Re: A possible fix? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 1. Gaining. 2. So just ServerTransferProhibited, then. :) J. From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 16:53 To: James Bladel >, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: A possible fix? Sorry I missed the call James: 1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both? 2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Feb 12 23:02:35 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:02:35 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Re: A possible fix? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Simonetta. The new policy lays out several situations under which an FOA would no longer be valid. T he problem discussed during today's call was: How will the (would be) Gaining Registrar know that the FOA they are holding is invalid? J. From: , Simonetta > Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 16:59 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >, James Bladel >, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: A possible fix? Also sorry for having missed today's call. I'm not entirely sure which problem you're trying to solve with the ideas below. Is this about verifying if an FOA is still valid? Simonetta From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:53 PM To: James M. Bladel; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? Sorry I missed the call James: 1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both? 2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Wed Feb 12 23:07:20 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:07:20 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? In-Reply-To: <20140212230335.B795C33C076@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20140212230335.B795C33C076@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: One could argue that with the upcoming changes to whois and a switch to thick for all that this might be better handled by the registry .. Or am I missing something? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:03 PM To: Batteiger, Simonetta; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Re: A possible fix? Hi Simonetta. The new policy lays out several situations under which an FOA would no longer be valid. T he problem discussed during today's call was: How will the (would be) Gaining Registrar know that the FOA they are holding is invalid? J. From: , Simonetta > Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 16:59 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >, James Bladel >, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: A possible fix? Also sorry for having missed today's call. I'm not entirely sure which problem you're trying to solve with the ideas below. Is this about verifying if an FOA is still valid? Simonetta From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:53 PM To: James M. Bladel; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? Sorry I missed the call James: 1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both? 2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simonetta at sedo.com Wed Feb 12 22:59:23 2014 From: simonetta at sedo.com (Batteiger, Simonetta) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:59:23 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? In-Reply-To: References: <20140212224528.2E03D33C04D@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Also sorry for having missed today's call. I'm not entirely sure which problem you're trying to solve with the ideas below. Is this about verifying if an FOA is still valid? Simonetta From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:53 PM To: James M. Bladel; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? Sorry I missed the call James: 1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both? 2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From simonetta at sedo.com Wed Feb 12 23:22:00 2014 From: simonetta at sedo.com (Batteiger, Simonetta) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:22:00 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hm... In the case of an aftermarket sale, the FOA is originally "pre-approved" by the seller (with the Losing registrar). I don't know how a Gaining Registrar would have any ability to "verify" that. They would likely not even know what the previous WhoIs record was at the time the seller gave the Losing Registrar their FOA. When the name moves over, the Gaining Registrars would usually not find something they can verify/compare and only know what the "new WhoIs data" of the buyer should be. That buyer should not be the entity giving the FOA. One other way to look at this could be to use FOAs in combination with the auth info codes. In essence we came out at the end of IRTP-C anyway, that we should look at whether auth-info codes are fulfilling the same function as an FOA. So maybe a suggestion could be to say that Losing Registrars should only provide auth info code to users who have given a valid FOA and if somebody can present a valid auth info code for the transfer, a registry can assume the FOA is valid? From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:03 PM To: Batteiger, Simonetta; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: Re: A possible fix? Hi Simonetta. The new policy lays out several situations under which an FOA would no longer be valid. T he problem discussed during today's call was: How will the (would be) Gaining Registrar know that the FOA they are holding is invalid? J. From: , Simonetta > Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 16:59 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight >, James Bladel >, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: A possible fix? Also sorry for having missed today's call. I'm not entirely sure which problem you're trying to solve with the ideas below. Is this about verifying if an FOA is still valid? Simonetta From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:53 PM To: James M. Bladel; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? Sorry I missed the call James: 1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both? 2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Mon Feb 24 20:32:33 2014 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:32:33 -0800 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Standing Meeting Time for IRTP C Implementation Review Team Message-ID: Greetings IRTP C IRT: ICANN Staff is currently working together to finalize a proposed implementation plan which we would like to share with you on our next call. Going forward, I am estimating that we will hold calls every 2-3 weeks (if needed) at a standing time. I have proposed a few times in the below Doodle Poll to see which "standing time" works the best for everyone on the IRT. http://doodle.com/ukuy47shzt8zuxup Please respond to the Doodle Poll at your earliest convenience, and I will revert to you with further information when we have agreed on a standing meeting time. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5050 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Wed Feb 26 18:11:38 2014 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:11:38 -0800 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT call on 06 March 2014 Message-ID: Dear all, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Implementation Review Team teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 06 March 2014 at 16:00 UTC. 08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CET, 03:00 (+1 day) Sydney Adigo Conference ID: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect with audio enabled: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5050 bytes Desc: not available URL: From psc at vlaw-dc.com Wed Feb 26 18:21:30 2014 From: psc at vlaw-dc.com (Phil Corwin) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:21:30 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT call on 06 March 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E0DED7CC5@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> I regret that the selected time does not work for me as the Business Constituency already has a call scheduled at that time to discuss plans for Singapore. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 1:12 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT call on 06 March 2014 Dear all, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Implementation Review Team teleconference is scheduled for Thursday 06 March 2014 at 16:00 UTC. 08:00 PDT, 11:00 EDT, 16:00 London, 17:00 CET, 03:00 (+1 day) Sydney Adigo Conference ID: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect with audio enabled: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: