- gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

Second version of the URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars
by Gustavo Lozano Sept. 3, 2013

Sept. 3, 2013

Colleagues, Attached you will find the second version of the "URS High Level Technical Requirements for Registries and Registrars" and a redline version of the document. This second version incorporates the feedback obtained from the conference call on August 07. We appreciate your feedback. Please send your feedback to the list or in private. Based on the feedback in this list, a new conference call may be required or this version may be published as the final version. Registry Operators will know the name servers deployed by the URS providers soon, in order to allow Registry Operators to create host objects (if necessary). Thank you, Gustavo

6 7

RRI OT&E
by Gustavo Lozano Aug. 20, 2013

Aug. 20, 2013

Colleagues, ICANN has deployed an OT&E for the interfaces (Registry Reporting Interfaces) described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-icann-registry-interfaces In order to access ICANN's RRI OT&E, the new gTLD Applicant (Primary Contact) needs to request access by submitting a case/request (a Back End Registry should only need one set of credentials) through the Customer Service portal (myicann.secure.force.com) The following information must be included in the case/request: * Subject line of ³Access Request for Registry Report Interface OT&E² * Application ID * IP addresses (up to five) that will be used to access the RRI OT&E. * An email address that will be added to ICANN¹s private RRI technical mailing list, direct interaction with ICANN's software development team is possible on this list. Version 02 of the draft will be published by the end of the week, it contains new result codes and minor updates. The production version of the RRI will be available after 5 weeks or less based on the results from your tests of the OT&E. The CSC (Customer Support Center) will start processing your requests on Wednesday (21/08/2013). Regards, Gustavo

2 2

URS-Technical Requirements conference call
by Gustavo Lozano Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

Colleagues, In response to your requests, we are happy to schedule a teleconference to discuss feedback on the URS-Technical Requirements document sent on 8 July. The teleconference will focus on the attached document and questions or concerns you may have related to what is outlined in the requirements document. The proposed date and time for the conference call is Wednesday, August 7, 2013 from 20:00:00 to 22:00:00 UTC. Please login to: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/urs <http://icann.adobeconnect.com/tmch> The requirements for URS are detailed in the AGB pp. 299 to 309. The proposed topics for discussion are: Communication mechanisms between Registries and URS providers. PGP or S/MIME to sign emails?. Implementing the URS lock. Domain name life cycle of URS locked and suspended domain names. How the URS lock affects the "normal" business processes of Registrars. Interaction between Registries and Registrars. Is EPP support required? Redirection and storing the current state of the domain name for the rollback. If you feel that other topics should be addressed during the conference call please propose them and I will add them to the list of topics. If you want to send alternative proposals that comply with the requirements in the AGB, feel free to send those to the list and we can discuss them during the conference call. Regards, Gustavo

2 1

Test SMDs files now available
by Gustavo Lozano Aug. 7, 2013

Aug. 7, 2013

Colleagues, Information about the recently published test SMDs files can be found in the following link: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/smd-test-reposito ry-15jul13-en.pdf The different parties involved in the TMCH project have developed test SMDs files in order to obtain feedback from the community and assist implementers of the SMD technology in testing their own implementations. These test SMDs files have been generated using the same models of HSMs (ICANN-TMCH-CA and TMV) that are going to be used in production. The code used to generate them is the latest version of the TMCH code developed by the different parties involved in the TMCH project. These test SMDs files should cover the different test cases and comply with http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lozano-tmch-smd-02 We appreciate your feedback no later than July 23, please test them and send your feedback to the mailing list or to me privately. We understand that this is a short period of time and any bug found after this date will be corrected, but it is extremely helpful if you could send your feedback before this date. Note: These test SMDs files include the TMV and CA certificate embedded in the XML, new test SMDs files are going to be generated soon in order to remove the CA certificate. The inclusion of the CA certificate in the SMD file should not have an impact on the tests performed with these SMDs files. Thank you, Gustavo

10 18

gtld-tech URS technical requeriments
by Gustavo Lozano July 29, 2013

July 29, 2013

Colleagues, Attached you will find a draft version of the URS technical requirements. You can find more information of how URS works here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/rules-28jun13-en.pdf The AGB provides high-level requirements regarding the URS procedures; the objective of the attached document is to define the detailed technical requirements for Registries and Registrars. Another document with the technical requirements for the URS provider is going to be published soon, but right now we want to obtain feedback regarding the requirements for Registries and Registrars. Please provide your feedback no later than Tuesday 23 of July. If you are going to be in Durban, send me an email and we can arrange an informal discussion about this. Regards, Gustavo

19 30

Re: [gtld-tech] gtld-tech URS technical requeriments
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight July 9, 2013

July 9, 2013

Jeff As a registrar all I really want to know is: - what if any obligations I have ie. your "what" - if those obligations are technically and commercially feasible I'm going to have to read over the other documents that were linked to, but forcing parties into contracts with each other seems odd (ie. the renewal obligation thing) regards Michele On 9 Jul 2013, at 14:07, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: > I guess my point in this is that we should be concerned with the "what" are registries and registrars supposed to do as opposed to the "how". And from my re-reading of the AGB, it seems like that document for the most part does an ok job in that. > > ICANN should not be mandating that any of this be done in an automated fashion, nor should it mandate things like "all e-mails sent by Registry Operator to the URD Provider MUST be cryptographically signed using a S/MIME certificate....." > > The whole thing just seems unnecessarily prescriptive to me. Frankly I would rather ICANN be spending its time worrying about getting up the testing environment with the TMCH than with this, but that may just be me. > > > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Mitchell [mailto:james.mitchell@ausregistry.com.au] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:15 PM > To: Neuman, Jeff; Mike O'Connor > Cc: John R.Levine; gtld-tech(a)icann.org > Subject: RE: [gtld-tech] gtld-tech URS technical requeriments > > Do we need this? Yes. > > A standard/specification is required if there is to be a consistent implementation across all registries. Seeking an update on URS technical/process issues was on our agenda for Durban - instead we can now discuss moving this forward (in whatever direction that may be). Thanks to Gustavo for getting this document out, and the discussion rolling. > > Regards, > James Mitchell / Product Owner > ARI Registry Services > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff >> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013 11:07 AM >> To: Mike O'Connor >> Cc: John R.Levine; gtld-tech(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] gtld-tech URS technical requeriments >> >> With all due respect, most of the registries that have been planning >> on actually launching at some point this year I would venture to say >> have either already built their functionality to do this or are >> otherwise planning to do this manually, both of which are acceptable >> options. We have pretty much known the rules now from the Guidebook >> for months - dare I say years for this. >> >> I am not sure who asked for a "standard" to be developed on this, but >> this is WAY too late in the game for icann to expect any registry to >> move to this new "standard" at this point in time. >> >> So I will ask the dumb question again...do we really need this? >> >> My question >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:42 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike(a)haven2.com> wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> a few questions: >>> >>> - is this really a "technical specification" or is it really a >>> higher >> level document (maybe something along the lines of a functional >> requirements definition)? if i were a coder looking for a technical >> spec, i'd be sending this back with a little note saying "try again." >> is a technical spec to follow? or is it up to the >> registries/registrars to implement these capabilities within their own >> architecture? >>> >>> - when does all the implementation (across registries and >>> registrars) >> need to be complete? is there a testing cycle to see whether things >> work as expected? who leads that? what happens if it's not done on >> time or doesn't work right? >>> >>> - is it expected that registries store the prior state of NS and DS >> records when a URS provider makes a request (i'll leave it up to >> Levine as to how they do it)? if the registries don't store that data >> (presumably using new code), how can they fulfill the requirements >> that prior data be restored in various use cases? if they do store >> it, who has access to that data? how does domain-name lifecycle >> information from registrars find its way into the stored data so that >> if the domain is restored, it's restored to the current (rather than >> the stored) state? >>> >>> if this isn't due to roll out for a year, i think we've got time to >> react. if it's supposed to roll out in a few months, life's going to >> get interesting. >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 5:39 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Let me ask the dumb question....do we really need a set of >>>>> standard >> specs for this for a registry? >>>> >>>> If URS exists at all (a battle that appears to have been lost quite >> a while ago) I would have to say yes, since if people roll their own, >> they'll likely make all the same security mistakes this spec does, and >> more. >>>> >>>> The basic problem is that the Internet is not synonymous with web >> servers, but too many people forget that. >>>> >>>> R's, >>>> John >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl@iecc.com] >>>>> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 06:29 PM >>>>> To: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano(a)icann.org> >>>>> Cc: gtld-tech(a)icann.org <gtld-tech(a)icann.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] gtld-tech URS technical requeriments >>>>> >>>>>> Please provide your feedback no later than Tuesday 23 of July. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for publishing this. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, the "URS Lock with Redirection" spec is a security >> disaster >>>>> for e-mail, pariticularly since, as I understand it, a typical use >> for the >>>>> URS will be to deal with typosquats of famous names such as >> páypàl.tld. >>>>> >>>>> Do we just send comments to you or is there a more formal place? >>>>> I expect that several anti-abuse organizations will want to weigh in. >>>>> >>>>> R's, >>>>> John >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet >> for Dummies", >>>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. >> http://jl.ly >>> >>> >>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >>> Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

3 2

Re: [gtld-tech] URS technical requeriments
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight July 9, 2013

July 9, 2013

Gustavo Just some initial thoughts .. Section 4: "Registrar MUST handle payments .. " Sorry, but I don't see how that's going to work The complainant has to enter into a contractual agreement with us as a registrar before we will accept payments from them ie. accept our terms and conditions etc., And the complainant may wish to move the domain to their preferred registrar etc., Also I can see plenty of obligations on registries and several on registrars, but will the URS provider actually inform us, as a registrar, of domains subject to URS? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ 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: gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org [gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org] on behalf of Gustavo Lozano [gustavo.lozano(a)icann.org] Sent: 08 July 2013 23:01 To: gtld-tech(a)icann.org Subject: gtld-tech URS technical requeriments Colleagues, Attached you will find a draft version of the URS technical requirements. You can find more information of how URS works here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/rules-28jun13-en.pdf The AGB provides high-level requirements regarding the URS procedures; the objective of the attached document is to define the detailed technical requirements for Registries and Registrars. Another document with the technical requirements for the URS provider is going to be published soon, but right now we want to obtain feedback regarding the requirements for Registries and Registrars. Please provide your feedback no later than Tuesday 23 of July. If you are going to be in Durban, send me an email and we can arrange an informal discussion about this. Regards, Gustavo

2 1

gtld-tech Final Draft Agenda for TechDay Durban 2013-07-15
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013

Hi, herewith the final draft agenda. greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

gtld-tech Final Draft Agenda for TechDay Durban 2013-07-15
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013

Hi, herewith the final draft agenda. greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

gtld-tech Clarifications to the registry monthly transactions report for new gTLDs
by Francisco Arias July 3, 2013

July 3, 2013

Colleagues, I've attached a draft of the updated section of Specification 3 for the new gTLDs related to the registry monthly transactions report. The attached file contains clarifications on what each of the fields mean. We are looking to see if the new proposed text makes clearer the intent on each field. We are not looking to change the meaning. Your kind and timely review would be greatly appreciated by this Thursday, 27 June at 15:00 UTC. Apologies for the short notice. Regards, -- Francisco.

4 6