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

[Neuman, Jeff]

Mikey,

I agree with you that this turned a while ago from a discussion of technical requirements to a discussion of legal and policy requirements.  ICANN - we requested another call on this.  Is this something that can happen?

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 7, 2013, at 8:34 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike at haven2.com> wrote:

> 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.)
>