One could argue that with the upcoming changes to whois and a switch to thick for all that this might be better handled by the registry ..

Or am I missing something?

--

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: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:03 PM
To: Batteiger, Simonetta; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Re: A possible fix?

Hi Simonetta.  The new policy lays out several situations under which an FOA would no longer be valid. T he problem discussed during today’s call was:  How will the (would be) Gaining Registrar know that the FOA they are holding is invalid?

J.

From: <Batteiger>, Simonetta <simonetta@sedo.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 16:59
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>
Subject: RE: A possible fix?

Also sorry for having missed today’s call.

I’m not entirely sure which problem you’re trying to solve with the ideas below.

Is this about verifying if an FOA is still valid?

Simonetta

From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:53 PM
To: James M. Bladel; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix?

Sorry I missed the call

James:

1 – which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both?

2 – um .. hangon, unless I’m missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn’t it? (Bear in mind I’m quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong)

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:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM
To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org
Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix?

Hi folks.  Hope no one was discouraged following todays call.  These things are very difficult (if they weren’t anyone could do them)…but not impossible!

So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices:

(1) Registrars must take two WHOIS “snapshots”:  One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution.

(2) Registries must “lock” (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP.

Reasoning:  By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer.

Thoughts?

J.