Roger, Just to note that what are you proposing simplifies the process for registrars, but keeps registries with the same complexity level we currently have to handle. If all we can get is simplifying things for the registrars I'm glad that at least someone is getting their life easier, but I wouldn't mind taking this opportunity to also try to simplify the registry side. Rubens Em 11/06/2014, à(s) 15:54:000, Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com> escreveu:
Good Afternoon,
Roy and I met with Karen and Krista last night to discuss the meeting planned for London on this topic. Staff will be securing a room for us to continue discussion on this topic and staff is planning to attend and participate as well. The discussion will be focused on clarifying the issue at hand and coming to a general consensus on the two or three most viable options to move forward with, in an open group discussion. More details to come shorty, we are looking to avoid Tuesday for this session as we know this is a busy day for most.
From GoDaddy’s stand-point the optimal solution carries beyond the “claims for 90 days post SLD availability” and would be a TLD lifetime solution. What we would like to see is the onus of tracking “claims periods” and synchronizing dates between registries and registrars be removed. Meaning that registrars would like to call the registry with a claim check and the registry would simply supply the Claim ID back if the DNL needs claims notification and not supply the Claim ID if the DNL does not require a claims notification. I believe this is just another way of saying what Jeff presented below (Jeff please correct me if this does not fundamentally match what you described). GoDaddy does support this approach.
Additionally we would like registrars to have access to the DNL List in order to eliminate unnecessary calls to the registry, e.g. we don’t want to have to make (and I am sure the registries don’t want us to make) a check call followed by a claim check call for every viable registration request forever.
Thanks Roger Carney GoDaddy
From: gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:20 PM To: Gould, James Cc: gtld-tech@icann.org; Elaine Pruis; tmch-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names
Hi all,
We have been thinking a great deal about this and cannot come to any other conclusion is that this will be a major pain with little to no benefit to anyone involved. I like the idea of addressing this at a policy level to see if this can be removed or retracted based on information and evidence we have to date. How many claims notices have been served by the TMCH, how many registrations did not go through because the registrant did not agree to the Claims Notification. how many URS's have been sent? I believe that ICANN made this mandatory in the RPM "negotiations" and hopefully they can reverse this the same way they mandated it.
Now that we are stuck with this , I think we still need to work towards a solution and think this is going to be driven by Registrars and how their solutions are setup. Even if a Registry decides to run eternal claims , if the registrar has their system set for .EXAMPLE TLD to only run claims for 90 days , it will be a bad user experience as the registration will fail, if the claims acknowledgment is not submitted. On the other side , if the Registrar has eternal claims running , then it will require all SLD's on the claims list to go through the TMCH, regardless if it is past 90 days. This is not a great option either , as it would add a tremendous workload to both Registries and Registrars and I do not see Registrars keeping this eternal claims on
I think a possible solution for both sides is to have domain level claims checks. When a registrant searches for a domains at their favorite registrar , the registrar would send a claims check to the Registry. If the Registry has been in GA for over 90 days and the domain name was available the whole time (not on reserve) then it would return that there is no claims on this domain , even if it is actually in the TMCH. If it was just taken off reserve and is less than 90 days than it would come back with yes for Claims and the registrar would need to pull the claims notice and present it to the registrant.
While this is still not ideal , it is the least burdensome method to registries and registrars and will cause the least amount of confusion for registrants
Would love to hear any thoughts on this or any other proposals as we get closer to London meeting
Jeff
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com> wrote: I agree with both Jeff and Elaine that having a discussion at the ICANN meeting along with further discussion on the list ahead of the meeting would be very useful. Can someone from ICANN respond to the request for adding this to the ICANN meeting agenda?
Thanks,
--
JG
<image001.png>
James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com
703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com
From: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff@rightside.co> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 4:13 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co>
Cc: "tmch-tech@icann.org" <tmch-tech@icann.org>, "gtld-tech@icann.org" <gtld-tech@icann.org> Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names
Great idea Elaine. We are still thinking about this since we are looking at it from the Registry and Registrar side and the few weeks leading up to London would be helpful .
I think we should continue discussion on the list leading up to the event , try to get to a plan right before event and maybe try to finalize something with ICANN in London
Jeff
On May 27, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co> wrote:
There are a few more options we can consider for Claims. Considering there is some dissent over how to apply the RPM requirements to reserved names it would be wise to meet in London for further discussion. That will give folks some time to come up with additional options. Would the ICANN person managing this list please arrange for that?
Elaine Pruis Vice President, Operations ……………………………… …… …… elaine@donuts.co +1 509-899-3161
<Donuts_Logo_Signature.png>
On May 27, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Wil Tan <wil@cloudregistry.net> wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com> wrote:
I prefer option 2 for the “Allocation of the reserved names” problem. I prefer option 4 first, followed by option 3, for the “Handling the claims service for reserved names that have marks in the TMCH” problem.
Running eternal claims services is clearly not a view shared by all registries. The middle ground -- asking registrars and registries to reactivate all the claims machinery for a subset of names -- presents a significant challenge.
As such, I concur with option 4 or 3 for handling claims for reserved names with marks in TMCH.
.wil
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.