Hi George, You're absolutely right. One of my browsers did not resolve to the bcg.app site. Another of my browsers did resolve and properly showed the suspension message: "The Domain Name you’ve entered is not available. It has been taken down as a result of dispute resolution proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or .us Rapid Suspension System (usRS) Procedure and Rules." I think the policy is pretty clear, but the implementation is definitely lacking. /Staff, could you kindly add this to the list of issues we should be considered on the URS? /Obviously, if a domain name is suspended, browsers should know. Tx you, George! Best, Kathy On 6/4/2018 6:54 PM, George Kirikos wrote:
The first URS case involving a .app domain was decided (in favour of the complainant), for bcg.app.
http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1785973D.htm
As I predicted earlier in this thread, the technical bug is evident, as there's no HTTPS page for bcg.app, i.e.
doesn't serve up the suspension page. If one attempts to load the HTTP version of the page VIA AN OLDER BROWSER (i.e. one that doesn't observe the HSTS preload list), one can see the standard suspension page at:
However, for a modern browser (e.g. the latest version of Chrome) that is enforcing the HSTS preload list which doesn't permit non-HTTPS pages for .app, the suspension page isn't loading.
The need for either a better policy (one that more clearly requires both HTTPS and HTTP versions of the suspension page) and/or better implementation by the URS providers, is evident.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:17 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just to followup, according to the search tool at NAF:
http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions
there are several URS disputes in progress for .app domains, including:
bcg.app skx.app oliverwyman.app skechers.app
We should know relatively soon whether the suspension pages for these domains (if decided in favour of the complainants) are served via HTTPS, to be compatible with the HSTS preload setting that Google has applied to the entire .app TLD.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:31 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Six days and no replies.....I'll just post the issue here, in the hopes it gets to the right people (and to highlight the policy issue).
As members of this PDP are aware, after a complainant wins a URS dispute, the URS provider is supposed to create a suspension page for the domain name. For example, at 2 of the 3 URS providers (the 3rd doesn't seem to have any active suspensions at the moment):
MFSD: http://reima.top NAF: http://wikipedia.kim
However, Google recently launched .app, which has a unique feature, namely that the entire TLD is on the HSTS preload list:
"The .app top-level domain is included on the HSTS preload list, making HTTPS required on all connections to .app websites — no individual HSTS registration or configuration required."
This means that unless the URS providers launch HTTPS versions of their suspension pages, the HTTP version won't be accessible for .app domains. Given the relatively high number of .app domains that were registered already, one would expect .app URS complaints to be forthcoming.
One can easily check that the 2 URS providers don't appear to be serving HTTPS versions of their suspension pages at present, see:
MFSD: https://reima.top (clicking through the SSL warnings takes ones to a MFSD page) NAF: https://wikipedia.kim (connection refused; presumably their webserver isn't listening at that port)
As for ICANN policy, the URS Technical Requirements at:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-17oct13-en.pdf
merely say, on page 1:
"A URS Suspended domain name will be redirected to a webpage that mentions that the domain name has been suspended because of a URS Complaint."
It didn't specify whether the "webpage" should be delivered via HTTP, or HTTPS, or both. A clearer set of requirements here would have avoided the issue.
There are likely still a few weeks before the first .app URS complaint is decided, so sufficient time for a fix. I figure this issue can be solved for under $20/month, for those who know what they're doing technically.
By the way, the implementation of suspension pages seems to differ across providers. e.g. NAF wildcards (*.example.com) the subdomains, so that:
http://gjkhjhg.wikipedia.kim http://anything.wikipedia.kim
deliver the page. MFSD only handles the "www" subdomain (and the naked domain itself). Neither of the 2 handle "internal" pages beyond the "home" page, e.g.
http://wikipedia.kim/lalala --- 404 error http://reima.top/lalala -- 404 error
With minor configuration changes, those URLs currently serving up a 404 error could instead serve the suspension notice.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:49 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I believe I've uncovered a technical bug in the URS implementation. Does anyone here know the best method to report it? It might require a policy change (due to the ambiguity of the policy's requirements on providers) or updated documentation, as well as implementation changes by providers, in order to fix it.
The bug isn't manifesting itself at the moment, but is almost certain to be visible to others in a short time.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg