[Gnso-rpm-providers] [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Tue Apr 24 15:45:47 UTC 2018

Dear All,

Staff were asked to provide some input on GDD’s responses to URS Technical Requirements related questions, and suggest whether they have any impact on the proposed questions to the URS Providers. Please be so kind to find the staff input in green below.

In staff’s view, Q6 under the “Notice of Complainant and Locking of Domain” may be removed in light of GDD’s responses. The other proposed questions are not really impacted, but staff have suggested some alternative and/or additional questions, if the Sub Team/WG is interested in sending Providers those inquires. Please be so kind to review the details below.

Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

==

  1.  Registry Requirement 8: Have ICANN received ERSR Waiver requests from Registry Operators? Has this provision been implemented?

Registry Requirement 8: Following the activation of a URS Lock or, if applicable, URS Suspension on a domain name, if the Registry Operator in its good faith belief concludes that the activation of URS Suspension on the domain name is likely to create a present or imminent security incident to the TLD or the DNS (e.g. indirect effects on a significant number of domain names related to possible child hosts that would result in resolution issues after activating the URS Suspension), the Registry Operator MAY submit an “Expedited Registry Security Request” to ICANN requesting that ICANN grant the Registry Operator a waiver from compliance with these Technical Requirements in order to deactivate the URS Lock or URS Suspension on the domain name (“ERSR Waiver”). ICANN will promptly engage all parties related to the ERSR Waiver on a case by case basis to reach a final resolution to the concerns that led to the Registry Operator’s ERSR Waiver request.

GDD Response: Yes, Registry Operators have requested ERSR waivers via ICANN’s Naming Services portal. After an ERSR request is submitted, the Security Response Team reviews and considers the ERSR in collaboration with the affected registry. While the details are confidential, in most cases ICANN org has granted a waiver from compliance with a specific provision of the Registry Agreement for the time period necessary to respond to the incident. For more information on the steps that are taken, please see: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ersr-2012-02-25-en

Staff Input:

In staff’s view, GDD’s response does not change the questions proposed to URS Providers. If the Sub Team would like to learn more about instances when a ERSR Waiver request was granted and want to know what happened to the disputed domain name, Registry Operators are more appropriate target for this inquiry.

We already have proposed questions that ask Providers to provide feedback regarding their experiences, especially difficulties encountered, in the implementation of URS Lock and URS Suspension. These questions may prompt the Providers to respond with instances related to the ERSR Waiver requests.

  *   Q1 – Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain: “Please provide feedback regarding your experiences in getting the disputed domain name(s) locked. In particular, have you experienced any difficulties having the URS Lock activated within 24 hours after sending the request to Registry Operators?”
  *   Q1 – Remedies: “Please provide feedback regarding any difficulties encountered in the implementation of the suspension remedy.”

If the Sub Team still consider it useful to ask Providers more details related to the ERSR Waiver, additional questions may include the following (placed under the “Notice of Complaint and Locking of Domain” and “Remedies” sections):

  *   Do you know of any cases in which the URS Lock or URS Suspension on the disputed domain name has to be deactivated due to Registry Operator’s security concerns?
  *   If so, how was it handled?

  1.  Registry-Registrar Agreement: Have Registry Operators modified their Registry-Registrar Agreement to reflect these two requirements?

The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator’s TLD that the Registrar MUST accept and process payments for the renewal of a domain name by a URS Complainant in cases where the URS Complainant prevailed.

The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator’s TLD that the Registrar MUST NOT renew a domain name to a URS Complainant who prevailed for longer than one year (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD).

GDD Response: Per the new gTLD Registry Agreement Specification 7, Registry Operators must comply with the URS mechanism. ICANN does not require ROs to provide their RRA to ICANN. When there is an RRA amendment, the RO is required to obtain ICANN approval for the amendments. For more information on the Procedure, see: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rra-amendment-procedure-2015-04-06-en. The ROs submit the RRA amendment approval request via ICANN’s Naming Services portal.

[Staff note]: While ICANN GDD does not know 100% whether ROs have included in their RRA those two requirements (as ICANN does not require ROs to provide their RRAs), but since ROs must comply with the URS mechanisms, and the two requirements are explicitly stated in the URS High Level Technical Requirements, it is a high likelihood that ROs have included in their RRAs these requirements.

Staff Input:

In staff’s view, GDD’s response already addressed the question about Registry-Registrar Agreement, so it does not change the questions proposed to URS Providers. If the Sub Team would like to verify whether these requirements are included in the RRA, Registry Operators are more appropriate target for this inquiry.

We have a proposed question under “Remedies” (Q4) that is related: “Do you know of any cases in which the Registry Operators refused to offer the option for URS Complainant to extend a URS suspended domain name’s registration for an additional year?”

If the Sub Team still consider it useful to ask Providers whether they know of any issues with regard to the extension of registration period, perhaps a more general question can be asked instead of Q4 under “Remedies” (e.g. Providers may respond with instances in which either the Registry Operator, the Registrar, or both caused the problem):

  *   Has any successful Complaint encountered difficulties renewing a URS suspended domain name for one additional year?
  *   If so, what happened? And how was it handled?

  1.   Registrar Requirement 2: Could GDD provide clarification on how they interpret this provision?

Registrar Requirement 2: Registrar MUST follow the normal domain name lifecycle for a URS Locked domain name. If the domain name registrant elects to renew, elected to auto-renew or restore the domain name registration, Registrar MAY accept such renewal and/or restoration (if the Registry Operator implements RGP).

GDD Response: The Registrar may accept the registrant’s renewal and/or restoration of the locked domain name.

  *   If registrant elected to renew – during Auto-Renew Grace Period
  *   If registrant elected to auto-renew – before domain name expires
  *   If registrant elected to restore the domain name registration – during the Redemption Grace Period (RGP)
For more information on the domain name lifecycle, please see: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-lifecycle-2012-02-25-en & Registry Requirement 9 in the URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-17oct13-en.pdf

Staff Input:

In staff’s view, GDD’s response does change the proposed questions to Providers.

Q6 under “Notice of Complainant and Locking of Domain” asks Providers whether they have a view on the meaning of “a normal domain name lifecycle”. The answer is published on icann.org: https://archive.icann.org/en/registrars/gtld-lifecycle.jpg. It may not be suitable to ask Providers what their “views” are as the information on a domain name’s lifecycle is published by ICANN as a “fact”. Furthermore, since the question is originated from URS Technical Requirements for Registrars, Registrars would be more appropriate target for the inquiry, should this question be asked. Hence, staff would suggest deleting this question.

From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:23 PM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>, "justine.chew at gmail.com" <justine.chew at gmail.com>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Thanks!

Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Ariel Liang [mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:21 PM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>; justine.chew at gmail.com
Cc: gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Hello Phil and Justine,

Thanks for bringing up this point. I think Justine is referring to the email sent by staff yesterday with regard to GDD’s responses to the three questions related to the High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars (attached).

Staff will review the list of proposed questions and suggest whether any question should be removed or reworded based on the GDD responses. In addition, since some proposed questions are related to Registry Operators, it may be helpful to check with GDD and ask further questions after we have received responses from the Providers.

Best Regards,
Ariel

Ariel Xinyue Liang
Policy Analyst | Washington, DC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 11:55 AM
To: "justine.chew at gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>" <justine.chew at gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>>
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Not sure. Can staff advise on what of any responses we have or expect to receive from GDD?

Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Justine Chew [mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 11:53 AM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>>
Cc: ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Phil,

May I ask, what might you / we propose as a course of action to deal with any impact the GDD responses might have on the questions to the Providers? Since we didn't have an opportunity to consider those during a sub-team call.

Thanks,

Justine
-----

On 18 April 2018 at 23:33, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the diligence

Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=E8aKMszpuROrxIQQ5AJIqRmZ5mgrA2q0_RUmLWoX3Cc&s=vRBbqNOc13CWplFVXVxHPCFNg6aBVttQoifX5jObpUM&e=>
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Gnso-rpm-providers [mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Justine Chew
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 11:20 AM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-providers at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-providers] [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Just spotted another typo:-

Further Statement

1. Have you acted ...(not Have your acted....)

Thanks,

Justine
-----

On 18 April 2018 at 23:10, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sub-team colleagues, Ariel,

I have spotted a couple of typographical errors which ought to be corrected:-

Under Examiner

6, Do you undertake any independent inquiries to adequately satisfy yourself of your Examiners' impartiality and independence? Or do you rely solely upon the oath or declaration made by each Examiner?

7. (To FORUM and MFSD) Has any of your Examiners voluntarily disclosed any conflict of interest? If not, then what action was taken upon discovery of any conflict? If a conflict was disclosed, did the Examiner do this before and/or during the case proceeding?

Thanks,

Justine
-----

On 18 April 2018 at 00:14, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>> wrote:
[Message sent on behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs]

Dear WG members:

Please find attached documents generated by the Sub Teams on Practitioners, and on Providers. There is a short description of each document below. These documents will be the presented by the Sub Team Chairs and serve as the main focus of our discussion on tomorrow’s WG call (Wed, 18 April at 17:00-18:30 UTC), with an aim to approving final versions expeditiously so that they can be sent out and responded to as soon as possible.

Providers Sub Team:
1. Consolidated Questions to URS Providers
2. Responses to Propose Questions to URS Providers:
-- The document includes responses already received from Providers during ICANN61 presentation and follow-up emails, as well as responses provided by staff research per Sub Team requests;
-- Questions partially responded by Providers are also included in the document to show why these questions are directed to specific Provider(s)

Practitioners Sub Team: URS Practitioner Background Experience and Perspective

Considerable work has gone into these documents and we thank the Sub Teams for their time, effort and care. As Co-Chairs, we urge that edits be proposed with great care, as balances were carefully considered by the Sub Teams.

A separate URS Documents Sub Team Summary Report being edited by Brian Beckham will be provided shortly. Time-allowing, we will consider this Summary Report tomorrow, otherwise, on 4/25.

Best to all,
Philip & Kathy

From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Date: Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:20 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed agenda for RPM Working Group call on 18 April 2018 at 1700 UTC

Dear RPM PDP WG members,

Here is the proposed agenda for the Working Group call Wednesday, 18 April 2018, scheduled for 1700 UTC:

Proposed Agenda:

  1.  Roll call (via WebEx and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
  2.  Status reports - with specific recommendations for next steps and timeline - from the three URS Sub Teams (Documents, Practitioners, Providers)
  3.  Discussion/agreement on next steps for the three URS Sub Teams in view of the current Phase One timeline
  4.  Notice of agenda for 25 April meeting

Best regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel and Berry

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-providers/attachments/20180424/69fbf685/attachment-0001.html>