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

Gould, James JGould at verisign.com
Thu May 29 20:38:44 UTC 2014

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?





James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
jgould at verisign.com

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

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


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


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.


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/20140529/f6a4bf96/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3CA91A0B-A6C1-43A5-AC92-8E23C9AD1B74[129].png
Type: image/png
Size: 4109 bytes
Desc: 3CA91A0B-A6C1-43A5-AC92-8E23C9AD1B74[129].png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20140529/f6a4bf96/3CA91A0B-A6C1-43A5-AC92-8E23C9AD1B74129.png>

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list