[Tmch-iag] T1 Data Locations

Mon Feb 6 23:11:14 UTC 2012

There is still the issue of the TMCH needing to be up for the display of claims notices.

If this is the case, then I don't think SLAs fix the problem, unless of course the SLAs have financial penalties that are paid both to Registrars and Registries (otherwise the SLA isn't worth anything).

The better way to fix it is to have people accept that in the case where the clearinghouse is down (which given the stringent SLAs in place shouldn't be that often) the Registrar is able to display a generic claims notice (which can be supplied to everyone) that simply states something along the lines of "The name you are registering clashes with a name in the trademark clearing house, more information is available at the clearing house <url> please indicate if you want to proceed" (the real notice should be drafted by someone who knows better what it should actually say).

Given the up-time that is being claimed the clearing house will be able to achieve I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this approach. It allows registrations to continue in the event of a clearing house outage, thus fixing one of the major problems that Registrars and Registries have with the centralized only system.

Thanks

Chris Wright
Chief Technology Officer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARI REGISTRY SERVICES
Level 8, 10 Queens Road. Melbourne. Victoria. Australia. 3004.
P  +61 3 9866 3710  F  +61 3 9866 1970  M  +61 401 873 798
E  chris.wright at ariservices.com
ariservices.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARI Registry Services is an evolution of AusRegistry International.
Follow us on Twitter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: tmch-iag-bounces at icann.org [mailto:tmch-iag-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tom Barrett
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 3:43 AM
To: 'Shorter, Will'; tmch-iag at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Tmch-iag] T1 Data Locations

Hi Will,

Thanks for continuing this discussion.  The estimates I referred to were in the attachment to the email.  You can also access it on the IAG Wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Home

I also would like to draw your attention to the revised proposed dataflows issued by ICANN for this week's call.  The data flow for trademark claims proposes a streamlined approach where registrars retrieve claims data directly from the the TMCH.  With this approach, there doesn't appear to be any need for registries to have copies of the TMCH data, nor presumably would they then have an SLA for trademark claims.

The time-critical interface becomes the one between the TMCH and Registrars for processing trademark claims.  There should be a contingency for registrars if the TMCH does not maintain the required SLA, or there is some unrelated connectivity issue with the TMCH.

I agree with you that registries will need query access to resolve sunrise-related conflicts, which does not require the registries to have copies of the TMCH data. 

I agree with you that there are several dimensions to how the TMCH should
scale:  I address only the peak transactions for sunrise and claims.  But the number of potential registries, registrars and registrants needing to query the TMCH could be modeled as well.  The protocols are also on the table this week for discussion.

I believe that there should be a requirement for the logging of the display of claims notices.  This would be a key reporting metric to measure the effectiveness of the trademark claims as a Rights Protection Mechanism.
With this week's proposed data flow for claims, registrars would query the TMCH directly, which would provide for this logging.  There should not be any charge by the TMCH to log this event.

Logging this data is the starting point in any efforts to detect attempts at data mining of the TMCH data. 

Logging the claims notices also allows for a more efficient method of determining if there was a successful domain name registration during the claims period.  Since the TMCH would already be aware of what claims notices were displayed for a particular TLD, it could simply do EPP check queries against the registry to determine which of the claims notices resulted in a domain name registration.  This is far more efficient than the registry querying the TMCH for each new registration to see if a claims notice exists.  It also completely relieves registries from doing anything related to trademark claims.
(this is the one change I am suggesting to the new claims data flow)

Best regards,

Tom
EnCirca

-----Original Message-----
From: Shorter, Will [mailto:wshorter at verisign.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:56 AM
To: 'tbarrett at encirca.com'; 'tmch-iag at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [Tmch-iag] T1 Data Locations

Hi Tom, thanks for your note. Follow up below;

1.	"After comparing estimates of the maximum volumes for the TMCH"

*	Can you please provide the estimates that you refer to for review? I
missed this data.

2.	"it seems very clear that the TMCH data could be kept solely in a
central database utilizing a technical architecture similar in scale to some of the existing smaller gTLD registries, such as .MOBI and .TEL"

*	Use of solely the query volume is not enough to define architecture
necessary to support the TMCH.  The number of participants and the level of access is different with the TCMH than with a standard gTLD domain name registry.  

3.	"This level of architecture for the TMCH could ensure the uptime and
responsiveness required by registries and registrars while satisfying the trademark owner concerns for data security."

*	The TMCH does not have well defined uptime (availability)
requirements for the different interface points (Registrant to TMCH, Registrar to TMCH, and Registry to TMCH).  The interface between the domain name registry and the TMCH is more sensitive considering that the domain name registries have both a contractual response time / availability SLA to meet, and just as important an established customer experience. I suppose that ICANN could update new gTLD registry agreements to waive response time and availability SLA's during these periods or just not measure. I'm really not sure how ICANN probes could possibly measure or definitively tell if a Registry is meeting its SLA's during periods when the registry is dependent on the TMCH.

4.	"The TMCH data is proprietary to trademark owners and is not
currently in the public domain

We agree with and confirm the following:

The TMCH data is proprietary to trademark owners and is not currently in the public domain Prevention of data mining should be a priority for the TMCH Distributing the TMCH data makes data mining impossible to prevent Distribution of the TMCH data is not even necessary given the expected scale of the TMCH"
----

The TMCH data can be centralized but the data needs to be made available for the following:
a.	For the domain name registrant to be able to review marks that match
their domain name registration requests during the trademark claims services period.  
b.	The data needs to be made directly available (e.g. whois-like
service) or indirectly available (e.g. via Registrar), but if there is a concern with making the data available at all then how can the trademark claims service period be successfully implemented based on the Application Guidebook?  
c.	The data needs to be made available to the domain name registries
for purposes of resolving overlapping sunrise domain name applications.
Without this domain name registries may default to first-come-first-servce or auction selection process which may not meet the needs of the trademark holders or domain name registries, and potentially result in higher costs for the community.  
d.	The data could be made available based on different levels of access
and needs.  For example, the TMCH support for the standard sunrise and trademark claims service period flows should provide for a basic level of trademark data that is not personally identifiable.  Additional data access is needed to support resolution of multiple applications for the same domain name or to meet the specific policies of a registry (there are many ccTLD's that have reqiured a local presence/mark to register a domain name, for
instance)   

"But the TMCH should also record the display of the claims notice itself, even if no registration follows."

*	There is no requirement to log the generation of the claims notice.
The key is to identify when someone has accepted and went through to domain name registration.  What would logging accomplish and what would be logged?
Would the TMCH propose to bill for logging this information?  

Thanks,
Will

Will Shorter
Product Management
wshorter at verisign.com
Office: 703-948-3806

VerisignInc.com

Will Shorter
Product Management
wshorter at verisign.com
Office: 703-948-3806

VerisignInc.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: tmch-iag-bounces at icann.org [mailto:tmch-iag-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tom Barrett
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:37 PM
To: tmch-iag at icann.org
Subject: [Tmch-iag] T1 Data Locations

IAG T1 comments - Distribution of TMCH Data January 30, 2012 Tom Barrett - EnCirca

The main topic of discussion for the IAG last week was concerned with distribution of TMCH data.

After comparing estimates of the maximum volumes for the TMCH to the query volume, uptime and responsiveness of existing registries, it seems very clear that the TMCH data could be kept solely in a central database utilizing a technical architecture similar in scale to some of the existing smaller gTLD registries, such as .MOBI and .TEL.  This level of architecture for the TMCH could ensure the uptime and responsiveness required by registries and registrars while satisfying the trademark owner concerns for data security.

We agree with and confirm the following:
. The TMCH data is proprietary to trademark owners and is not currently in the public domain . Prevention of data mining should be a priority for the TMCH . Distributing the TMCH data makes data mining impossible to prevent .
Distribution of the TMCH data is not even necessary given the expected scale of the TMCH

Please see the attached document for a detailed examination of these issues, including an analysis of how big the TMCH needs to be compared to existing gTLD registries.

I look forward to your comments.

Best regards,

Tom Barrett
EnCirca

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4792 - Release Date: 02/06/12

_______________________________________________
tmch-iag mailing list
tmch-iag at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tmch-iag