[gtld-tech] URS technical requeriments

[Alexander Mayrhofer]

Gustavo,

> Please provide your feedback no later than Tuesday 23 of July.
> If you are going to be in Durban, send me an email and we can arrange an informal discussion about this.
 
Thanks for posting the document. It seems that there was no informal discussion round in Durban about this, so here are my comments:

- Re-delegating domains to an arbitrary set of nameservers (communicated in the URS case itself) seems worrying. We strongly suggest to consider the following:

a) require URS providers to use a pre-defined set of nameservers per URS provider as redelegation target (rather than arbitrary hosts), and communicate those hostnames beforehand to each registry. Registry providers could then create the respective host objects before the actual URS requests.

b) Registries could then also filter URS requests against that set of nameservers, and hence reduce the risk of rogue re-delegations. Such "well known" URS hosts could also give an indication regarding the status of the domain in the WHOIS.


c) ICANN should also consider that the re-delegation of a domain would also affect subordinate hosts, and therefore potentially other domains that are delegated to those subordinate hosts. This is currently not addressed at all in the document. 

d) URS providers should never require glue changes of such subordinate host names in the process of such re-delegation.

thanks

Alex Mayrhofer
nic.at