- gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

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

Call for Presentations for TechDay at ICANN London
by Dr Eberhard W Lisse April 26, 2014

April 26, 2014

As usual we shall be organizing TechDay on Monday of the coming ICANN meeting in London Please submit ideas for presentations to the list addresses where this message appears or to any of the following email addresses: el(a)lisse.na ondrej.filip(a)nic.cz This time we would like to have a focus on "(Big) Data", if possible, preferably DNS related data, ie query analysis etc, but also methods. As we have no budget presenters are responsible for their own transport and room and board. As the name suggests, talks must be of a technical (or operational, perhaps even administrative) nature, and should revolve around TLDs, but otherwise we are quite open. Please forward this to gNSO and other lists as well :-)-O 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

spec5-reserved-names Legal Notice?
by Colosi, John April 22, 2014

April 22, 2014

Folks, Considering the spec5-reserved-names<https://github.com/centralnic/spec5-reserved-names> github repo that Gavin organized. I was wondering if the repo should have some kind of legal disclaimer saying essentially that folks should use it at their own risk. The community has done their best job of interpreting the ICANN guidelines, but it’s up to users to implement things in a way that meets their own contractual obligations. May be this isn’t necessary. Thoughts? -- John John Colosi Senior Manager of Product Development JColosi(a)Verisign.com m: 703-967-4062 t: 703-948-3211 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://www.verisigninc.com/> [Verisign™] “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.”

2 1

Registrar IDs for new gTLDs
by Rubens Kuhl April 8, 2014

April 8, 2014

Hi there. After seeing Francisco Arias's presentation during ICANN Singapore, I had a doubt that one person also asked during the session: if the agreement only specifies 9999 as Registrar ID, can we divide the registrations depending on its billable nature between 9998 and 9999 without breaking the agreement ? Agreement text says: "02 iana-id For cases where the registry operator acts as registrar (i.e., without the use of an ICANN accredited registrar) 9999 should be used, otherwise the sponsoring Registrar IANA id should be used as specified in http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids " Any thoughts on that ? Any ICANN clarifications on this ? Tks, Rubens NIC.br

5 6

An on-going IETF discussion
by Edward Lewis April 7, 2014

April 7, 2014

Hi folks, (First time I’ve been on this list…but I think a few on the list already know me - I looked at some of the archives. I used to work with one gTLD, now I’m doing leg work for ICANN.) There’s a discussion in the IETF’s DNS Operations Working Group that people here might want to tune into and perhaps provide input. The message setting this up is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg11543.html (And BTW, check this out too: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg11542.html) The discussion is around an IETF *standards track* proposal to define a mechanism for how a registrant would signal to a registry that it has changed it’s NS set and/or glue records. The reason I’m bringing this up is: 1) The IETF believes that documenting this approach is better than not documenting, because they are concerned about delegations that do not fit the “ICANN model.” 2) The IETF wants and needs to hear from real operators. 3) In my opinion, this mechanism isn’t be workable for the gTLD environment. But, what do I know? So, I’m asking for those who have the time to take a look at the document and make comments on it - if not to the DNSOP list, to the DNSOP chairs or listed authors/editors. I don’t think the effort is dangerous, per se, but there are times that RFCs are pulled into RFPs for registry services. IMHO, I wouldn’t want this to become something asked of large registries. Perhaps I’m being paranoid, I say this to perhaps motivate people to read and comment. ;) Deadline is April 16 for the last call in the message (11543) above. Ed Lewis (aka edward.lewis(a)icann.org)

1 0

"zfa-passwords" vs CZDS
by Alexander Mayrhofer March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

We're currently looking into submitting our first ICANN reports for the new gTLDs we host. One of the fields in the ICANN reporting data is the "zfa-passwords" field, which is supposed to contain the number of active users for the Zone File Access service of the TLD. In the light of CZDS, we're assuming that this field can be left set to "0", because there are no direct zone file access users with the individual registry (and that ICANN gathers the number of users directly from CZDS). Can someone (preferrably from ICANN) confirm this? thanks, Alex

9 14

Fwd: [dns-operations] DNS-OARC Spring 2014 Workshop - Warsaw, Poland, 10/11th May
by Mehmet Akcin March 18, 2014

March 18, 2014

FYI, A must attend event for DNS folks ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Keith Mitchell <keith(a)dns-oarc.net> Date: Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:30 PM Subject: [dns-operations] DNS-OARC Spring 2014 Workshop - Warsaw, Poland, 10/11th May To: dns-operations(a)mail.dns-oarc.net DNS-OARC is pleased to announce that registration is now open for its 2014 Spring Workshop and Member EGM on the 10th and 11th May, in Warsaw, Poland. This will be held at the same location the subsequent RIPE68 meeting, and we're grateful to Microsoft for being our Platinum sponsor for this workshop. You can find more information about the workshop at: https://indico.dns-oarc.net//event/workshop-2014-05 and may register at: https://indico.dns-oarc.net//confRegistrationFormDisplay.py?confId=19 We still have room for some additional speakers on our programme, the submission deadline is THIS FRIDAY 21ST MARCH. For this workshop we are particularly interested in talks on DNS privacy and confidentiality, and DNS over alternative (non UDP) transports. Please submit your abstracts for review by the Programme Committee at: https://indico.dns-oarc.net//conferenceCFA.py?confId=19 OARC Workshop meetings are open to OARC members, presenters, and to all other parties interested in DNS operations and research, subject to available space. RIPE attendees are particularly welcome this time around. Workshop registration is free of charge, with priority given to OARC Members, Speakers, and Sponsors in the event of limited space. We are seeking additional sponsors for this meeting and a potential social event - if your organization is interested in sponsorship, please contact <sponsor(a)dns-oarc.net> for more information. For accommodation, travel and venue information, please see the RIPE68 meeting site at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/venue/meeting-venue/ Keith Mitchell OARC President _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations(a)lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs

1 0

Fwd: Almost Final Draft Agenda for TechDay Singapore
by Dr Eberhard Lisse March 15, 2014

March 15, 2014

Hi, we seem to have got us a draft agenda, which looks pretty close to the real thing, but times may change, or not. There is quite some stuff not just only for ccTLDs alone :-)-O so please spread the word. greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

2 1

Interfacing into ICANN's monitoring service provider?
by Alexander Mayrhofer Feb. 28, 2014

Feb. 28, 2014

Hi, back during the Prague ICANN meeting, i asked whether it will be possible for new gTLD registries (or their technical backend operators) to get data out from ICANN's own SLA monitoring service. In addition to a Registry's own monitoring system, this would provide a valuable additional "outside view" to the operations team. In discussion with other backend operators, i got the impression that this was something many of the community were interested in. The answer back then (from Francisco, if i remember correctly) was that "this was something that ICANN will look into". Was there any outcome regarding this? thanks, Alex

1 0