May 2014 - gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

Handling of "loc" and "int" contacts
by Alexander Mayrhofer July 18, 2014

July 18, 2014

All, We're currently evaluating the options regarding the "int" and "loc" postalInfo elements of the EPP contact mapping. Currently, we use the "int" type exclusively, but looking at the recent developtments in the "IRD" area (http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ird-requirements) we're looking into the options to move forward with allowing "loc" postalInfo types as well. I'm trying to grasp a "sense of the room" with regards to the following questions, and would appreciate feedback: - For registries that implement "loc" postalInfo, which of the options do you support? a) just "loc" b) either "loc" or "int" c) "int" required, "loc" optional d) "loc" required, "int" optional - For registries that allow both "loc" and "int", do you require any connection between the two postalInfo data sets (for example, "identical cc", or "identical pc"?) - For registries that allow both "loc" and "int", which of the two are you displaying in WHOIS? Are you trying to serve "different views" depending on user location or (in the case of web whois) user agent information (eg. "accept-language" header?) - Do you limit the text contents of "loc" fields to a certain sensible subset of UTF-8, for example to the set of scripts that are also the basis for the registry's IDN tables? Feedback appreciated :) thanks, Alex

6 5

RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names
by Gould, James June 20, 2014

June 20, 2014

According to section 2.4.3 of the Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) Requirements, it states: If Registry Operator reserves a domain name from registration in accordance with Section 2.6 of the Agreement and Specification 5 of the Agreement and thereafter (i) releases for Allocation or registration such reserved domain name at any time prior to the start date of the Claims Period, such domain name MUST be treated like any other domain name for any applicable Sunrise Period, Limited Registration Period, Launch Program or Claims Period, or (ii) releases for Allocation or registration such reserved domain name at any time following the start date of the Claims Period, such domain name MUST be subject to the Claims Services (as defined in Section 3) for a period of ninety (90) calendar days following the date Registry Operator releases such domain name for registration as long as the Trademark Clearinghouse (or any ICANN-designated successor thereto) remains in operation. For registries that plan on releasing domain names after the Claims Period, such as to support the release of premium domain names or 2 character domain names, they will have to support the Claims Services well past the Claims Period (potentially years). This represents a costly burden to the registries having to indefinitely download the DNL list, support the claims check, validating the domain creates against the DNL list for a subset of domain names, and support the TMCH LORDN interface. This also represents a costly burden to registrars or discourages registrar participation in supporting the release of reserved domain names. The registrars would need to know to use the claims check, use the CNIS for presenting the claims notice, and passing the claims acknowledgement indefinitely. Since this is a complex issue impacting registries and registrars, what approaches are being considered? Do the registries and registrars have any issues with supporting the Claims Service indefinitely? Please respond with your thoughts and concerns. Thanks, -- JG [cid:81958BBD-962A-4D7D-AB87-1A2BDB076D74] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould(a)verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

14 25

Re: [gtld-tech] gtld-tech Digest, Vol 13, Issue 1
by Dykes, Roy May 19, 2014

May 19, 2014

One way of dealing with this is to have the registry notify the TMCH (not using the LORDN file) but something similar to the TMCH if there's a registration of a domain name matching that of a claim. --Neustar Registry Product Management -----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of gtld-tech-request(a)icann.org Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:00 AM To: gtld-tech(a)icann.org Subject: gtld-tech Digest, Vol 13, Issue 1 Send gtld-tech mailing list submissions to gtld-tech(a)icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://mm.icann.org/mailman/lis… or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to gtld-tech-request(a)icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at gtld-tech-owner(a)icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of gtld-tech digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names (Gould, James) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 11:53:01 +0000 From: "Gould, James" <JGould(a)verisign.com> To: "gtld-tech(a)icann.org" <gtld-tech(a)icann.org>, "tmch-tech(a)icann.org" <tmch-tech(a)icann.org> Subject: [gtld-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names Message-ID: <CF9F6885.5F071%jgould(a)verisign.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" According to section 2.4.3 of the Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) Requirements, it states: If Registry Operator reserves a domain name from registration in accordance with Section 2.6 of the Agreement and Specification 5 of the Agreement and thereafter (i) releases for Allocation or registration such reserved domain name at any time prior to the start date of the Claims Period, such domain name MUST be treated like any other domain name for any applicable Sunrise Period, Limited Registration Period, Launch Program or Claims Period, or (ii) releases for Allocation or registration such reserved domain name at any time following the start date of the Claims Period, such domain name MUST be subject to the Claims Services (as defined in Section 3) for a period of ninety (90) calendar days following the date Registry Operator releases such domain name for registration as long as the Trademark Clearinghouse (or any ICANN-designated successor thereto) remains in operation. For registries that plan on releasing domain names after the Claims Period, such as to support the release of premium domain names or 2 character domain names, they will have to support the Claims Services well past the Claims Period (potentially years). This represents a costly burden to the registries having to indefinitely download the DNL list, support the claims check, validating the domain creates against the DNL list for a subset of domain names, and support the TMCH LORDN interface. This also represents a costly burden to registrars or discourages registrar participation in supporting the release of reserved domain names. The registrars would need to know to use the claims check, use the CNIS for presenting the claims notice, and passing the claims acknowledgement indefinitely. Since this is a complex issue impacting registries and registrars, what approaches are being considered? Do the registries and registrars have any issues with supporting the Claims Service indefinitely? Please respond with your thoughts and concerns. Thanks, -- JG [cid:81958BBD-962A-4D7D-AB87-1A2BDB076D74] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould(a)verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com ?This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.?

3 2