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

Sun Jun 22 13:00:50 UTC 2014

Elaine,

Claims Lite consists of a LORDN like interface between the registries and the TMCH that provides a notice of the release and the allocation of reserves names with no front end claims to the registrar or registrant.  The registries would need to implement this new LORDN like feed that will provide ICANN and the trademark holders systematic visibility into the reserved name activity.  The release (i.e start of auction) of the reserved names would not show up in the zone files, so Claims Lite will provide more timely notice for the trademark holders.  ICANN could use the feed to monitor the reserved name activity.  The key is to not require a mix of registration flows for the registrars and registrants depending on whether the domain is a standard domain or a released reserved domain, which is disruptive to all parties.

JG

James F. Gould
Principal Engineer
Verisign

jgould at verisign.com<mailto:jgould at verisign.com>

On Jun 22, 2014, at 7:19 AM, "Elaine Pruis" <elaine at donuts.co<mailto:elaine at donuts.co>> wrote:

Hi James,

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I've forgotten the details of "claims lite." Is that just notifying trademark holders when a name is registered right? If not, what does that require from the registry? Are claims still presented to the registrant?

Elaine

On Jun 20, 2014, at 9:23 AM, "Gould, James" <JGould at verisign.com<mailto:JGould at verisign.com>> wrote:

Elaine,

Using a small subset of the list does reduce the probability of a match, but it does not remove it completely, meaning that the claims check still needs to be invoked by the registrar with the chance, yet very small, that the registrar would need to interface with the CNIS to present the claims notice and submit the claims acknowledgement on the create.

Claims defines the general flow of a TLD, meaning a phase, and really is not a service that is applicable to a very small subset of domains of the TLD.

I still prefer the "Claims Lite" option that does not require any front end interface changes, but does provide additional visibility to ICANN and the trademark holders for the releasing and allocation of reserved names.

JG

James F. Gould
Principal Engineer
Verisign

jgould at verisign.com<mailto:jgould at verisign.com>

On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:02 PM, "Elaine Pruis" <elaine at donuts.co<mailto:elaine at donuts.co>> wrote:

The easiest option is to verify against a small subset of the DNL Since the full DNL isn't checked, no claims will be presented after the mandatory 90 days for names that were available during that period.
Claims would only be presented on names that come off the reserved list and are also on the DNL list.
The "claims check" would be against a sub-list of the DNL list, instead of checking the entire list.
This works for reserved names and for NXD names when they become available.

This solution doesn't require much workflow change for registrars--just removing the "end date" for claims. It requires a bit of dev work for registry operators because we'd have to check a different list after the mandatory 90 days are up,  but the cost would be significantly less.

Jeff asked for some data to help guide the discuss, can we get an idea from the TMCH how many names on the DNL actually have been registered, and from registrars how many customers don't register after seeing a claims notice?

We checked registrations in 90 TLDs against the DNL--the average number of names in our TLDs that are on the DNL is only 1%.  This data is verifiable by checking zone files against the DNL.
Considering the name collision block lists (the greatest source of reserved names, thousands in every TLD), on average only 0.47% of the names blocked for NXD are also on the DNL.

Elaine Pruis
Vice President, Operations
………………………………
……
……
elaine at donuts.co<mailto:elaine at donuts.co>
+1 509-899-3161

<Donuts_Logo_Signature.png>

On Jun 11, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>> wrote:

Jeff
Sorry if I’m a bit thick here, but if you could clarify what you’re proposing for me it would be helpful.
At the moment most new TLD registries seem to support a variant of the “claims check” which extends the standard “domain check”.
Are you proposing removing that or tweaking it?

Just trying to understand what you’re saying

Thanks and regards

Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: tmch-tech-bounces at icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:tmch-tech-bounces at icann.org<mailto:tech-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf OfJeffrey Eckhaus
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:27 PM
To: tmch-tech at icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech at icann.org>; gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>
Subject: [tmch-tech] Fwd: 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

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff at rightside.co<mailto:jeff at rightside.co>>
Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names
Date: June 10, 2014 at 2:19:49 PM PDT
To: "Gould, James" <JGould at verisign.com<mailto:JGould at verisign.com>>
Cc: 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>>, "gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>" <gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>>

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/20140622/ce5d09d5/attachment-0001.html>