[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose

Fri Sep 9 16:37:15 UTC 2016

It will be a good exercise for us to populate this diagram, or one equivalent to it, with the list of activities and proposed endpoints.

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-lifecycle-2012-02-25-en

It would be a similar discussion to that for use cases.

/marksv

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Pelling
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 8:02 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose

Hi Chuck,

Sure,  from my (registrar) point of view there can be a few, that I have personally witnessed, other registrars may know of others that they have been subjected too.

UDRP (Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies) - Domain is locked at time of request of information by UDRP provider, thus domain remains locked for that period of the panel making a decision.
Lock completed by Registrar in this case.

URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) - Essentially domain is suspended by the Registry in this case  ( I have not had one of these yet so hazy )

Registrar domain suspension - This could be locked by registrar, for abuse of ToS / AUP for example, domain would then enter normal RGP, Redemption and deletion.

serverHold Status - This is a funny one, and can happen for a number of reasons, I have personally had a registry simply suspend the domain name, tells the registrar "oh its by court order" in which case you might get a copy of the court order , or better than that "sealed court order" where you get nothing - nowt - not a sausage from the registry and you have no comeback, left in limbo and the registrant has no idea (sometimes) why the domain is now dead.  In this state, registrar cannot delete domain, make changes too or anything at registry.  On WHOIS however in a thin environment, the registrar does still have the option to make changes to the registrant data.

The above is not exhaustive.

Kind regards,

Chris

________________________________
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
To: "chris" <chris at netearth.net<mailto:chris at netearth.net>>, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Sent: Friday, 9 September, 2016 14:52:25
Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose

Chris,

It might be helpful for those not directly involved in the domain name registration business to share some examples of when a domain is not under the control of the registrant.

Chuck

From: Chris Pelling [mailto:chris at netearth.net]
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 3:09 AM
To: Greg Shatan
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose

We also need to consider that the life-cycle of the domain is not entirely under the control of the registrant whom provided the data, which then brings in Privacy law for example.  The life-cycle meaning for this purpose would need to be very well defined.

Kind regards,

Chris

________________________________
From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2016 20:21:03
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS Statement of Purpose

I expressed a concern about this on the call (it may have been in the chat), along the following lines:  What exactly is meant by "the life-cycle of a domain name"?

Also, is this meant to be a minimum standard (i.e., RDS must, at a minimum, support the life-cycle of a domain name), to which other elements can be added?

Or is this meant to be a limiting standard (i.e., RDS must not do more than support the life-cycle of a domain name), to which other elements can be added only if they fit within the "life-cycle of a domain name"?

Or is this meant to be a "primary purpose" standard, where other elements can be added, but they would not be considered a "primary purpose" (which has a significant downstream effect, e.g., in certain privacy legislation)?

Finally, I would ask which of the use cases that we have on our list fall within "the life-cycle of a domain name" and which do not?  (I suppose this last question is intertwined with my first question above.

Depending on what other participants believe the answers to these questions should be, and what their effect may be, I may have significant concerns about this statement.

Greg

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:

In our call earlier this week there seemed to be support for one element of a RDS Statement of Purpose as suggested by Jim Galvin:  “The RDS should support the life cycle of a domain name.”  No one on the call disagreed with this; if anyone not on the call has comments on this please communicate so on this list prior to our call next week. Also, if any one who was on the call has comments that you did not share, please do so before next week’s meeting.

Also, it would be helpful if everyone could be thinking about answers to the following questions:
•         What are the criteria for a statement of purpose?
•         What elements, if any, from the EWG statement of purpose should be reflected in the statement of purpose?
•         What other elements need to be reflected in the statement of purpose?
We plan to discuss these questions in next week’s meeting but comments would be appreciated on the list before then.

Chuck

Here’s the EWG statement of purpose that we discussed in our meeting earlier this week:

To help guide the EWG in its deliberations, the group developed a high-level statement of purpose from which to test its conclusions and recommendations, as follows:
In support of ICANN’s mission to coordinate the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers, and to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier system, information about gTLD domain names is necessary to promote trust and confidence in the Internet for all stakeholders.
Accordingly, it is desirable to design a system to support domain name registration and maintenance which:
•         Provides appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform registration data
•         Protects the privacy of personal information
•         Enables a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and maintaining the ability to contact Registrants
•         Supports a framework to address issues involving Registrants, including but not limited to: consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime, and intellectual property protection
•        Provides an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement needs

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160909/d1371b5f/attachment.html>