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

Luis Muñoz lem at isc.org
Sat Sep 7 18:21:32 UTC 2013

A related question to the list,

On Sep 6, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Rob Golding wrote:

>> 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.

In addition to this point, what is the practical purpose of this renewal? What is the purpose of prolonging the period during which a domain affected by URS is showing a "URS suspended" page? Specially if the subordinate host objects were removed or otherwise rendered inoperable.

If the URS complainant effectively has rights to the domain in dispute, why not simply give her complete control of the domain in dispute? At that point the complainant can do as she pleases with the domain through regular channels, including dealing with subordinate objects.

Best regards


More information about the gtld-tech mailing list