Seth, Have you been able to use GDD Portal to get eternal claims service ? It seems to require a fixed date when submitting TLD Startup Info... Rubens Em 19/05/2014, à(s) 11:00:000, Seth Goldman <sethamin@google.com> escreveu:

We are planning to offer an eternal claims service on all our TLDs. It's better for trademark holders, plus it's operationally simpler.

Seth

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com> wrote: 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

<3CA91A0B-A6C1-43A5-AC92-8E23C9AD1B74[99].png>

James Gould Principal Software Engineer 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.”

Nic, I agree that finding a consistent / standard approach to this would benefit all participants. There are two problems that need to be addressed for these names, which include: 1. Allocation of the reserved names * Should reserved name applications get created and allocated per draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase? * The creation of applications may be mixed with registrations. This is not a launch phase, but a release of a set of domains. For registrars not explicitly participating in the release of the reserved names, it would be unclear why an application was created over a registration. One mechanism to mitigate this is to require the <launch:create> extension with the “type” attribute set to “application” for the reserved domains. I’m assuming that the check response would return back unavailable for reserved domains with a reason like “reserved domain” so not to mislead non-participating registrars. * Following the full application state machine, as defined in draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase, may be overkill for releasing a smaller set of names. Registrars may be discouraged from participating based on the level of complexity associated with the application state machine. * Should an allocation string / token be used to authorize the registration of a reserved domain name that is made available out-of-band? For example, an auction provider could provide the allocation string / token to the winner of the auction and the registrar would pass it with the domain create of the reserved domain via either the RFC 5731 authorization info or another EPP extension. * The registries and the registrars would need to support a new mechanism for creating a reserved domain in using the allocation string / token. * This is simpler than using the application state machine of draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. 2. Handling the claims service for reserved names that have marks in the TMCH * This problem was the point of the initial list posting, where the claims service would need to be re-enabled by registries and participating registrars for use only with the reserved domains potentially well past the claims launch phase. This assumes that a registry does not run claims indefinitely. Since reserved names would probably not be released all at once, this cycle would have to be repeated many times for each TLD. * The options include: * Registries and participating registrars must fully support the claims service based on the RPM requirements. The registry must re-enable the claims check service, must re-enable the claims acknowledgement verification, and must re-enable the LORDN interface for a subset of the domain names. The registrars must re-enable the use of the claims check service, must re-enable their interface with the CNIS, and must re-enable passing the claims acknowledgement for reserved domains that have marks. * This is a great amount of overhead for the registries and the registrars for releasing a set of domain names potentially well past the claims launch period. * This will discourage registrar participation. * The registries must keep support for claims indefinitely that can be enabled later. * Registries and participating registrars support asynchronous claims acknowledgement out-of-band of EPP. * The registries would allow the creation of reserved domains that will be put in pendingCreate if there is a matching mark. The claims acknowledge would need to be passed to the registry out-of-band to allocate the domain. * Reserved domains that don’t have matching marks will be immediately allocated, assuming that the registry does not have a pendingCreate model. * As Roy suggested, require claims service notification from the registries to the TMCH without the front-end claims service requirements. I would loosely define this as “Claims Lite”, where the TMCH and subsequently ICANN will receive systematic notification of reserved name allocations that have marks. We could consider broadening the notifications to include providing the initial reserved name list, release of the reserved domains, and finally allocation of all reserved domains. * The registrars would not be impacted at all since there is no need to present the claims notice to the registrant, so therefore it will encourage registrar participation. * Registries would need to support a new LORDN-like interface with the TMCH that may require a broader set of systematic notifications for monitoring and visibility by the mark holders and ICANN. * Registries would not be required to support the claims check service and claims acknowledge validation. * This could be an alternate approach to what is currently defined in the RPM requirements for the claims service. * Don’t require support for the claims service for the releasing of reserved names. * The reserved domains will be registered and allocated after the required claims launch period, where other domains registered and allocated during the “open” phase have no equivalent requirement. 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. Are there any other problems or options that need to be considered? Are there any preferences from both registries and registrars? -- JG [cid:2D02DBFE-952D-4A9F-B173-6E9B7013FE70] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com<mailto:nic@name.com>> Date: Monday, May 19, 2014 at 10:32 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names It would be nice to have a standard way of addressing this - supporting claims indefinitely, pursuing an alternate method like the one mentioned by Roy or any other solution - but I think given the TLD roll out so far standardization across all platforms seems unlikely. A PDP would not have tangible results before some registries would like to pursue this path. I would be surprised if a registry didn't implement a delayed reserved rollout along these lines this quarter and it will only pick from there. Instead registries need to realize the development burdens on registry operators and registrars so that there reserved rollout is as standard as possible and enticing enough to make these burdens worthwhile. Given the nature of these names - it is certainly possible to make the program enticing. I would guess that as least within a registry operator, the mechanism for addressing both the claims and the validation piece that goes along with this would be standard. We fully expect to support various models as long as the benefits and requirements are communicated clearly and translate to a sound business decision for all parties involved. On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Seth, Have you been able to use GDD Portal to get eternal claims service ? It seems to require a fixed date when submitting TLD Startup Info... Rubens Em 19/05/2014, à(s) 11:00:000, Seth Goldman <sethamin@google.com<mailto:sethamin@google.com>> escreveu: We are planning to offer an eternal claims service on all our TLDs. It's better for trademark holders, plus it's operationally simpler. Seth On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto:JGould@verisign.com>> wrote: 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 <3CA91A0B-A6C1-43A5-AC92-8E23C9AD1B74[99].png> James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271<tel:703-948-3271> (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://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.” -- Nic Steinbach Strategic Relationship Manager 209.681.7838 [http://name.com/images/email-signature-logo1.jpg]

Thanks for laying out so nicely, Jim. For allocation of reserved names, Neustar prefers Option 2. For handling of Claims for reserved names with marks in the TMCH, Neustar prefers Option 4 first, but if still required to support Claims, then Option 3. Thanks, --Roy Dykes From: tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gould, James Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:23 PM To: Nic Steinbach; Rubens Kuhl Cc: tmch-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 Nic, I agree that finding a consistent / standard approach to this would benefit all participants. There are two problems that need to be addressed for these names, which include: 1. Allocation of the reserved names * Should reserved name applications get created and allocated per draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase? * The creation of applications may be mixed with registrations. This is not a launch phase, but a release of a set of domains. For registrars not explicitly participating in the release of the reserved names, it would be unclear why an application was created over a registration. One mechanism to mitigate this is to require the <launch:create> extension with the "type" attribute set to "application" for the reserved domains. I'm assuming that the check response would return back unavailable for reserved domains with a reason like "reserved domain" so not to mislead non-participating registrars. * Following the full application state machine, as defined in draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase, may be overkill for releasing a smaller set of names. Registrars may be discouraged from participating based on the level of complexity associated with the application state machine. * Should an allocation string / token be used to authorize the registration of a reserved domain name that is made available out-of-band? For example, an auction provider could provide the allocation string / token to the winner of the auction and the registrar would pass it with the domain create of the reserved domain via either the RFC 5731 authorization info or another EPP extension. * The registries and the registrars would need to support a new mechanism for creating a reserved domain in using the allocation string / token. * This is simpler than using the application state machine of draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase. 1. Handling the claims service for reserved names that have marks in the TMCH * This problem was the point of the initial list posting, where the claims service would need to be re-enabled by registries and participating registrars for use only with the reserved domains potentially well past the claims launch phase. This assumes that a registry does not run claims indefinitely. Since reserved names would probably not be released all at once, this cycle would have to be repeated many times for each TLD. * The options include: * Registries and participating registrars must fully support the claims service based on the RPM requirements. The registry must re-enable the claims check service, must re-enable the claims acknowledgement verification, and must re-enable the LORDN interface for a subset of the domain names. The registrars must re-enable the use of the claims check service, must re-enable their interface with the CNIS, and must re-enable passing the claims acknowledgement for reserved domains that have marks. * This is a great amount of overhead for the registries and the registrars for releasing a set of domain names potentially well past the claims launch period. * This will discourage registrar participation. * The registries must keep support for claims indefinitely that can be enabled later. * Registries and participating registrars support asynchronous claims acknowledgement out-of-band of EPP. * The registries would allow the creation of reserved domains that will be put in pendingCreate if there is a matching mark. The claims acknowledge would need to be passed to the registry out-of-band to allocate the domain. * Reserved domains that don't have matching marks will be immediately allocated, assuming that the registry does not have a pendingCreate model. * As Roy suggested, require claims service notification from the registries to the TMCH without the front-end claims service requirements. I would loosely define this as "Claims Lite", where the TMCH and subsequently ICANN will receive systematic notification of reserved name allocations that have marks. We could consider broadening the notifications to include providing the initial reserved name list, release of the reserved domains, and finally allocation of all reserved domains. * The registrars would not be impacted at all since there is no need to present the claims notice to the registrant, so therefore it will encourage registrar participation. * Registries would need to support a new LORDN-like interface with the TMCH that may require a broader set of systematic notifications for monitoring and visibility by the mark holders and ICANN. * Registries would not be required to support the claims check service and claims acknowledge validation. * This could be an alternate approach to what is currently defined in the RPM requirements for the claims service. * Don't require support for the claims service for the releasing of reserved names. * The reserved domains will be registered and allocated after the required claims launch period, where other domains registered and allocated during the "open" phase have no equivalent requirement. 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. Are there any other problems or options that need to be considered? Are there any preferences from both registries and registrars? -- JG [cid:image001.png@01CF769B.68608C40] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: Nic Steinbach <nic@name.com<mailto:nic@name.com>> Date: Monday, May 19, 2014 at 10:32 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names It would be nice to have a standard way of addressing this - supporting claims indefinitely, pursuing an alternate method like the one mentioned by Roy or any other solution - but I think given the TLD roll out so far standardization across all platforms seems unlikely. A PDP would not have tangible results before some registries would like to pursue this path. I would be surprised if a registry didn't implement a delayed reserved rollout along these lines this quarter and it will only pick from there. Instead registries need to realize the development burdens on registry operators and registrars so that there reserved rollout is as standard as possible and enticing enough to make these burdens worthwhile. Given the nature of these names - it is certainly possible to make the program enticing. I would guess that as least within a registry operator, the mechanism for addressing both the claims and the validation piece that goes along with this would be standard. We fully expect to support various models as long as the benefits and requirements are communicated clearly and translate to a sound business decision for all parties involved. On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: Seth, Have you been able to use GDD Portal to get eternal claims service ? It seems to require a fixed date when submitting TLD Startup Info... Rubens Em 19/05/2014, à(s) 11:00:000, Seth Goldman <sethamin@google.com<mailto:sethamin@google.com>> escreveu: We are planning to offer an eternal claims service on all our TLDs. It's better for trademark holders, plus it's operationally simpler. Seth On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto:JGould@verisign.com>> wrote: 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 <3CA91A0B-A6C1-43A5-AC92-8E23C9AD1B74[99].png> James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271<tel:703-948-3271> (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://VerisignInc.com&k=lQ50IrZ4...> "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." -- Nic Steinbach Strategic Relationship Manager 209.681.7838 [http://name.com/images/email-signature-logo1.jpg]

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 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

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 [cid:43590A14-37FF-41BD-9245-01F3447E7591] 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<mailto:jeff@rightside.co>> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 4:13 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co>> Cc: "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:elaine@donuts.co> +1 509-899-3161 <Donuts_Logo_Signature.png> On May 27, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Wil Tan <wil@cloudregistry.net<mailto:wil@cloudregistry.net>> wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto: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.

As far as a session in London, we are looking into how to facilitate this. Is there someone on the list willing to be a point person for staff on organizing the type of session envisioned by the group? This will probably be the best way to expedite the planning. Best regards, Karen Lentz ICANN -----Original Message----- From: tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gavin Brown Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 6:32 AM To: Gould, James; Jeffrey Eckhaus; Elaine Pruis Cc: tmch-tech@icann.org; gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] [gtld-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names +1. On 29/05/2014 21:38, Gould, James 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?

-- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.

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

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.

Jeff Sorry if I'm a bit thick here, but if you could clarify what you're proposing for me it would be helpful. At the moment most new TLD registries seem to support a variant of the "claims check" which extends the standard "domain check". Are you proposing removing that or tweaking it? Just trying to understand what you're saying Thanks and regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie 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: tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:27 PM To: tmch-tech@icann.org; gtld-tech@icann.org Subject: [tmch-tech] Fwd: 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 Begin forwarded message: From: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff@rightside.co<mailto:jeff@rightside.co>> Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names Date: June 10, 2014 at 2:19:49 PM PDT To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com<mailto:JGould@verisign.com>> Cc: Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co>>, "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>> 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<mailto: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 [cid:image001.png@01CF85B4.1162AA40] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271<tel:703-948-3271> (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com> From: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff@rightside.co<mailto:jeff@rightside.co>> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 4:13 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co>> Cc: "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:elaine@donuts.co> +1 509-899-3161<tel:%2B1%20509-899-3161> <Donuts_Logo_Signature.png> On May 27, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Wil Tan <wil@cloudregistry.net<mailto:wil@cloudregistry.net>> wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto: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.

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<mailto: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 [cid:image001.png@01CF8571.6E70F950] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271<tel:703-948-3271> (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff@rightside.co<mailto:jeff@rightside.co>> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 4:13 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co>> Cc: "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:elaine@donuts.co> +1 509-899-3161<tel:%2B1%20509-899-3161> <Donuts_Logo_Signature.png> On May 27, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Wil Tan <wil@cloudregistry.net<mailto:wil@cloudregistry.net>> wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto: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.

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.

Roger, Are you proposing that the claims check response after the claims phase include the noticeID that is retrieved by the registry from the CNIS for directly including in the claims acknowledgement of the create? If so, I prefer the “Claims Lite” option of not requiring the use of claims check, claims acknowledgement, and integration with CNIS past the claims phase. Providing the list of reserved domain names released and allocated in a LORDN-like feed from the registry to the TMCH / ICANN should provide systematic notice to trademark holders and ICANN without introducing the mess of the claims service interface elements between the registrars and the registries. Considering that the release of reserved names could happen long after the claims phase and could happen in small increments, inclusion of the front-end claims service between the registrars and the registries is much too heavy weight and complex for the value. -- JG [cid:0FB45701-1974-4C84-995E-E2BEA1480DB9] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com<mailto:rcarney@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff@rightside.co<mailto:jeff@rightside.co>>, James Gould <jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>>, Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co>>, "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto: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 Rubens, Agreed this does keep it simple for registrars. As compared to some other approaches, I also believe that it does not add to the complexity for the registries, though I will humbly leave that up to you and the other registries to provide insight into as we collaborate on these issues. GoDaddy supports making this process as simple for all involved parties while maintaining the integrity of the systems and interests at hand. Thanks Roger From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:37 PM To: Roger D Carney Cc: Jeffrey Eckhaus; Gould, James; gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>; Elaine Pruis; tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] [tmch-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names 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<mailto: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> [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<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>; Elaine Pruis; tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271<tel:703-948-3271> (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff@rightside.co<mailto:jeff@rightside.co>> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 4:13 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co>> Cc: "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:elaine@donuts.co> +1 509-899-3161<tel:%2B1%20509-899-3161> <Donuts_Logo_Signature.png> On May 27, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Wil Tan <wil@cloudregistry.net<mailto:wil@cloudregistry.net>> wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto: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.

Roger, Karen I apologise if this has been communicated already, I couldn’t find any details. Has there been any update on arranging for a meeting in London? ARI is very interested in participating. We’ve been conducting outreach on this topic for several months, so I believe we have a lot to offer the discussion. One observation I’d make from our outreach efforts, is that there is a lack of awareness of this issue amongst many Registrars. While those familiar with the topic were able to provide us some excellent feedback, many of the Registrars that we contacted were simply not aware of the possible complications (from a systems development, staff process and customer communication point of view) that they would face. I’d recommend a quick summary of the issue be sent around. The more that understand and can meaningfully participate, the better the outcome. Kal Feher Enterprise Architect ARI Registry Services From: tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org [mailto:tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2014 4:55 AM To: Jeffrey Eckhaus; Gould, James; gtld-tech@icann.org; Elaine Pruis; tmch-tech@icann.org Subject: Re: [tmch-tech] [gtld-tech] RPM Requirement of Supporting Claims Service for Release or Allocation of Reserved Domain Names 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> [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<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>; Elaine Pruis; tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 [cid:image001.png@01CF8C93.3E8D9120] James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> 703-948-3271<tel:703-948-3271> (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: Jeffrey Eckhaus <jeff@rightside.co<mailto:jeff@rightside.co>> Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 4:13 PM To: Elaine Pruis <elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co>> Cc: "tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>" <tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>>, "gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech@icann.org>" <gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:elaine@donuts.co> +1 509-899-3161<tel:%2B1%20509-899-3161> <Donuts_Logo_Signature.png> On May 27, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Wil Tan <wil@cloudregistry.net<mailto:wil@cloudregistry.net>> wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com<mailto: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.