[gtld-tech] [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names

Fri Jun 13 15:33:39 UTC 2014

Hi James,

I think we are on the same page. I am suggesting that if the requirement is to display a claims notice to the registrant the registry would pass back the Claims ID (and relevant data) in the claim check response and if the notice is not required the response would be empty as it is today.

To your point of the "Claims Lite", if this was the eventual requirements then during this "Claims Lite" there would be no requirement to display the notice to the registrant and the response to a call to the claim check command would return empty.

And again, to keep it in the forefront, we would like registrars to have access to the DNL List in order to eliminate unnecessary calls to the registry, e.g. we don't want to have to make (and I am sure the registries don't want us to make) a check call followed by a claim check call for every viable registration request forever.

Thanks
Roger Carney
GoDaddy

From: Gould, James [mailto:JGould at verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:14 PM
To: Roger D Carney; Rubens Kuhl
Cc: Jeffrey Eckhaus; gtld-tech at icann.org; Elaine Pruis; tmch-tech at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names

Roger,

Are you proposing that the claims check response after the claims phase include the noticeID that is retrieved by the registry from the CNIS for directly including in the claims acknowledgement of the create?  If so, I prefer the "Claims Lite" option of not requiring the use of claims check, claims acknowledgement, and integration with CNIS past the claims phase.  Providing the list of reserved domain names released and allocated in a LORDN-like feed from the registry to the TMCH / ICANN should provide systematic notice to trademark holders and ICANN without introducing the mess of the claims service interface elements between the registrars and the registries.  Considering that the release of reserved names could happen long after the claims phase and could happen in small increments, inclusion of the front-end claims service between the registrars and the registries is much too heavy weight and complex for the value.

--

JG

[cid:image001.png at 01CF8593.89AB10D0]

James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
jgould at verisign.com<mailto:jgould at verisign.com>

703-948-3271 (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com

From: Roger D Carney <rcarney at godaddy.com<mailto:rcarney at godaddy.com>>
Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
Cc: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff at rightside.co<mailto:jeff at rightside.co>>, James Gould <jgould at verisign.com<mailto:jgould at verisign.com>>, "gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>" <gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>>, Elaine Pruis <elaine at donuts.co<mailto:elaine at donuts.co>>, "tmch-tech at icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech at icann.org>" <tmch-tech at icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [gtld-tech] [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names

Hi Rubens,

Agreed this does keep it simple for registrars. As compared to some other approaches, I also believe that it does not add to the complexity for the registries, though I will humbly leave that up to you and the other registries to provide insight into as we collaborate on these issues. GoDaddy supports making this process as simple for all involved parties while maintaining the integrity of the systems and interests at hand.

Thanks
Roger

From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:37 PM
To: Roger D Carney
Cc: Jeffrey Eckhaus; Gould, James; gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>; Elaine Pruis; tmch-tech at icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names

Roger,

Just to note that what are you proposing simplifies the process for registrars, but keeps registries with the same complexity level we currently have to handle. If all we can get is simplifying things for the registrars I'm glad that at least someone is getting their life easier, but I wouldn't mind taking this opportunity to also try to simplify the registry side.

Rubens

Em 11/06/2014, à(s) 15:54:000, Roger D Carney <rcarney at godaddy.com<mailto:rcarney at godaddy.com>> escreveu:

Good Afternoon,

Roy and I met with Karen and Krista last night to discuss the meeting planned for London on this topic.  Staff will be securing a room for us to continue discussion on this topic and staff is planning to attend and participate as well.  The discussion will be focused on clarifying the issue at hand and coming to a general consensus on the two or three most viable options to move forward with, in an open group discussion. More details to come shorty, we are looking to avoid Tuesday for this session as we know this is a busy day for most.

>From GoDaddy's stand-point the optimal solution carries beyond the "claims for 90 days post SLD availability" and would be a TLD lifetime solution.  What we would like to see is the onus of tracking "claims periods" and synchronizing dates between registries and registrars be removed.  Meaning that registrars would like to call the registry with a claim check and the registry would simply supply the Claim ID back if the DNL needs claims notification and not supply the Claim ID if the DNL does not require a claims notification.  I believe this is just another way of saying what Jeff presented below (Jeff please correct me if this does not fundamentally match what you described).  GoDaddy does support this approach.

Additionally we would like registrars to have access to the DNL List in order to eliminate unnecessary calls to the registry, e.g. we don't want to have to make (and I am sure the registries don't want us to make) a check call followed by a claim check call for every viable registration request forever.

Thanks
Roger Carney
GoDaddy

From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:20 PM
To: Gould, James
Cc: gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>; Elaine Pruis; tmch-tech at icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names

Hi all,

We have been thinking a great deal about this and cannot come to any other conclusion is that this will be a major pain with little to no benefit to anyone involved. I like the idea of addressing this at a policy level to see if this can be removed or retracted based on information and evidence we have to date. How many claims notices have been served by the TMCH, how many registrations did not go through because the registrant did not agree to the Claims Notification. how many URS's have been sent?  I believe that ICANN made this mandatory in the RPM "negotiations" and hopefully they can reverse this the same way they mandated it.

Now that we are stuck with this , I think we still need to work towards a solution and think this is going to be driven by Registrars and how their solutions are setup. Even if a Registry decides to run eternal claims , if the registrar has their system set for .EXAMPLE TLD to only run claims for 90 days , it will be a bad user experience as the registration will fail, if the claims acknowledgment is not submitted. On the other side , if the Registrar has eternal claims running , then it will require all SLD's on the claims list to go through the TMCH, regardless if it is past 90 days. This is not a great option either , as it would add a tremendous workload to both Registries and Registrars and I do not see Registrars keeping this eternal claims on

I think a possible solution for both sides is to have domain level claims checks. When a registrant searches for a domains at their favorite registrar , the registrar would send a claims check to the Registry. If the Registry has been in GA for over 90 days and the domain name was available the whole time (not on reserve) then it would return that there is no claims on this domain , even if it is actually in the TMCH. If it was just taken off reserve and is less than 90 days than it would come back with yes for Claims and the registrar would need to pull the claims notice and present it to the registrant.

While this is still not ideal , it is the least burdensome method to registries and registrars and will cause the least amount of confusion for registrants

Would love to hear any thoughts on this or any other proposals as we get closer to London meeting

Jeff

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Gould, James <JGould at verisign.com<mailto:JGould at verisign.com>> wrote:
I agree with both Jeff and Elaine that having a discussion at the ICANN meeting along with further discussion on the list ahead of the meeting would be very useful.  Can someone from ICANN respond to the request for adding this to the ICANN meeting agenda?

Thanks,

--

JG

<image001.png>

James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
jgould at verisign.com<mailto:jgould at verisign.com>

703-948-3271<tel:703-948-3271> (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com<http://verisigninc.com/>

From: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff at rightside.co<mailto:jeff at rightside.co>>
Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 4:13 PM
To: Elaine Pruis <elaine at donuts.co<mailto:elaine at donuts.co>>

Cc: "tmch-tech at icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech at icann.org>" <tmch-tech at icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech at icann.org>>, "gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>" <gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names

Great idea Elaine. We are still thinking about this since we are looking at it from the Registry and Registrar side and the few weeks leading up to London would be helpful .

I think we should continue discussion on the list leading up to the event , try to get to a plan right before event and maybe try to finalize something with ICANN in London

Jeff

On May 27, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Elaine Pruis <elaine at donuts.co<mailto:elaine at donuts.co>> wrote:

There are a few more options we can consider for Claims.  Considering there is some dissent over how to apply the RPM requirements to reserved names it would be wise to meet in London for further discussion.  That will give folks some time to come up with additional options.
Would the ICANN person managing this list please arrange for that?

Elaine Pruis
Vice President, Operations
....................................
......
......
elaine at donuts.co<mailto:elaine at donuts.co>
+1 509-899-3161<tel:%2B1%20509-899-3161>

<Donuts_Logo_Signature.png>

On May 27, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Wil Tan <wil at cloudregistry.net<mailto:wil at cloudregistry.net>> wrote:

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Gould, James <JGould at verisign.com<mailto:JGould at verisign.com>> wrote:

 I prefer option 2 for the "Allocation of the reserved names" problem.  I prefer option 4 first, followed by option 3, for the "Handling the claims service for reserved names that have marks in the TMCH" problem.

Running eternal claims services is clearly not a view shared by all registries. The middle ground -- asking registrars and registries to reactivate all the claims machinery for a subset of names -- presents a significant challenge.

As such, I concur with option 4 or 3 for handling claims for reserved names with marks in TMCH.

.wil

Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20140613/3dcc0770/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4109 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20140613/3dcc0770/image001-0001.png>