[gtld-tech] URS technical requirements, comments and questions

[Mike O'Connor]

um…

i admit it -- i haven't been following this too closely.  but this thread looks like it's turning into a policy discussion rather than a "technical requirements" discussion.

could somebody kinda bring me up to speed on the state of play of the underlying policies?  

sorry to be such a dolt.  the PGP discussion fit in my expectations for what's supposed to happen on this list, but this seems a bit far afield.  didn't most of these issues go through some kind of policy process already?

thanks,

mikey


On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:13 PM, "Rob Golding" <rob.golding at astutium.com> wrote:

>> The proposal is to show a warning message when filling the URS procedure
>> if the domain name is within the last month of validity, explaining that
>> the domain name may be deleted during the URS process and the process
>> will be terminated.
> 
> Certainly _if_ the domain is (actually) deleted (i.e. has gone through
> expiry/redemption/whatever all the way to the final-actual-definate 'really
> is' deletion, then yes, that should end the URS
> 
>> 2. The text in requirement 9 "Registry Operator MUST offer the option
>> for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name
>> registrations for up to one year from the date the domain name was
>> Suspended", sounds like the renew command behavior needs to change for
>> URS Suspension domains
> 
> Why ? Allowing them to renew (at the Registrar) if it _expires_ makes sense.
> 
> Allowing it to be extended 174 days before expiry by 365 days ( 1 year )
> will break all sorts of things.
> 
>> The renew command should extend from the prior
>> expiration date and not the date the domain name was suspended
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> However I don't agree that 'random-3rd-party' (URS complainant) shouldn't be
> able to just 'renew' (extend) the registration of a domain name *unless*
> it's expired/expiring.
> 
> 
>> I recommend that the registries allow for the renew of URS Suspension
>> domains and leave it up to the Registrars to ensure that the renew is
>> done at most once for URS Suspension domains, by the URS Complainant,
>> according to the Registry-Registrar Agreement.
> 
> Having the registry reject any renewal for > 1 year (and for a 2nd time) on
> a URS locked domain (with such restrictions to be removed when the URS lock
> is removed) does make the most sense.
> 
>> Registry Requirement 9: In cases where a URS Complainant (as defined in
>> the URS Rules) has prevailed, Registry Operator MUST offer the option
>> for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's
>> registration (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD).
> 
> No, not option by the *registry operator* given to the *urs complainant*
> 
> Has to be the registrar renewing it ... wording is wrong.
> 
> Can be written much simpler as
> 
> ==
> Registry Requirement 9: 
> Registry Operator MUST allow REGISTRAR OF RECORD to extend the registration
> of (renew) a URS Suspended Domain Name a maximum of one period whilst domain
> is USR locked  (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD).
> ==
> Then nothing else about who pays or who requests it etc is necessary.
> 
>> Registry Operator MAY collect the renewal fee paid by the URS
>> Complainant for the URS Suspended domain name from the sponsoring
>> Registrar of the domain name.
> 
> They wont if the renewal fee wasn't paid to the registrar !
> 
>> 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.
> 
> There can be no "MUST" - we -like most countries - have restrictions on who
> we can do business with. Similarly we always reserve the right to choose who
> we do business with - you cannot enforce a MUST on the Registrar to take
> money and/or process it from an "unknown entity" (the URS Complainant) -
> people who we may not legally, logically, ethically, any-other-ally accept
> money from or do business with.
> 
> Similarly, anyone we take money from has to have agreed to our terms and
> conditions, and if they haven't, we don't want their business or their money
> - USR complainant or otherwise.
> 
>> 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).
> 
> Is dealt with above.
> 
>>> 3. Handling the URS Suspension of domains when the domain has child
>>> hosts
>> GL - It's difficult to know which domain names depend on another domain
>> name as separate entities administer separate sections of the DNS tree.
>> However, this seems to be a corner case
> 
> It's be a criminal case if you redirected the child hosts or the responses
> from nameservers.
> 
> If foo.bar had ns1.foo.bar and blah.blah used ns1.foo.bar as a nameserver
> Then on suspension and redirection of foo.bar there *MUST* be no record for
> ns1.foo.bar so dns would "stop"
> - anything else would be illegal 
> 
> I'm not sure there should even be any redirection of foo.bar itself going on
> 
> 
>> URS providers could have proper EPP 
> 
> With the potential for them to screw up and the potential knock on 'damage'
> and claims that would ensue, I'd rather not see any URS provider have access
> to a computer, and make this all done on multi-part carbon-copy forms.
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> --
> rob.golding at astutium.com    www.astutium.com    020 3475 2555
> Astutium Ltd, 1st Floor, Number One Poultry, London, EC2R 8JR
> Registered in England (UK) / Company #8183381 / VAT #145054825
> 


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20130907/f9e74abe/smime.p7s>