Re: [gtld-tech] URS technical requirements, comments and questions
um… i admit it -- i haven't been following this too closely. but this thread looks like it's turning into a policy discussion rather than a "technical requirements" discussion. could somebody kinda bring me up to speed on the state of play of the underlying policies? sorry to be such a dolt. the PGP discussion fit in my expectations for what's supposed to happen on this list, but this seems a bit far afield. didn't most of these issues go through some kind of policy process already? thanks, mikey On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:13 PM, "Rob Golding" <rob.golding@astutium.com> wrote:
The proposal is to show a warning message when filling the URS procedure if the domain name is within the last month of validity, explaining that the domain name may be deleted during the URS process and the process will be terminated.
Certainly _if_ the domain is (actually) deleted (i.e. has gone through expiry/redemption/whatever all the way to the final-actual-definate 'really is' deletion, then yes, that should end the URS
2. The text in requirement 9 "Registry Operator MUST offer the option for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name registrations for up to one year from the date the domain name was Suspended", sounds like the renew command behavior needs to change for URS Suspension domains
Why ? Allowing them to renew (at the Registrar) if it _expires_ makes sense.
Allowing it to be extended 174 days before expiry by 365 days ( 1 year ) will break all sorts of things.
The renew command should extend from the prior expiration date and not the date the domain name was suspended
Absolutely.
However I don't agree that 'random-3rd-party' (URS complainant) shouldn't be able to just 'renew' (extend) the registration of a domain name *unless* it's expired/expiring.
I recommend that the registries allow for the renew of URS Suspension domains and leave it up to the Registrars to ensure that the renew is done at most once for URS Suspension domains, by the URS Complainant, according to the Registry-Registrar Agreement.
Having the registry reject any renewal for > 1 year (and for a 2nd time) on a URS locked domain (with such restrictions to be removed when the URS lock is removed) does make the most sense.
Registry Requirement 9: In cases where a URS Complainant (as defined in the URS Rules) has prevailed, Registry Operator MUST offer the option for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's registration (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD).
No, not option by the *registry operator* given to the *urs complainant*
Has to be the registrar renewing it ... wording is wrong.
Can be written much simpler as
== Registry Requirement 9: Registry Operator MUST allow REGISTRAR OF RECORD to extend the registration of (renew) a URS Suspended Domain Name a maximum of one period whilst domain is USR locked (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD). == Then nothing else about who pays or who requests it etc is necessary.
Registry Operator MAY collect the renewal fee paid by the URS Complainant for the URS Suspended domain name from the sponsoring Registrar of the domain name.
They wont if the renewal fee wasn't paid to the registrar !
The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator's TLD that the Registrar MUST accept and process payments for the renewal of a domain name by a URS Complainant in cases where the URS Complainant prevailed.
There can be no "MUST" - we -like most countries - have restrictions on who we can do business with. Similarly we always reserve the right to choose who we do business with - you cannot enforce a MUST on the Registrar to take money and/or process it from an "unknown entity" (the URS Complainant) - people who we may not legally, logically, ethically, any-other-ally accept money from or do business with.
Similarly, anyone we take money from has to have agreed to our terms and conditions, and if they haven't, we don't want their business or their money - USR complainant or otherwise.
The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator's TLD that the Registrar MUST NOT renew a domain name to a URS Complainant who prevailed for longer than one year (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD).
Is dealt with above.
3. Handling the URS Suspension of domains when the domain has child hosts GL - It's difficult to know which domain names depend on another domain name as separate entities administer separate sections of the DNS tree. However, this seems to be a corner case
It's be a criminal case if you redirected the child hosts or the responses from nameservers.
If foo.bar had ns1.foo.bar and blah.blah used ns1.foo.bar as a nameserver Then on suspension and redirection of foo.bar there *MUST* be no record for ns1.foo.bar so dns would "stop" - anything else would be illegal
I'm not sure there should even be any redirection of foo.bar itself going on
URS providers could have proper EPP
With the potential for them to screw up and the potential knock on 'damage' and claims that would ensue, I'd rather not see any URS provider have access to a computer, and make this all done on multi-part carbon-copy forms.
Regards, Rob -- rob.golding@astutium.com www.astutium.com 020 3475 2555 Astutium Ltd, 1st Floor, Number One Poultry, London, EC2R 8JR Registered in England (UK) / Company #8183381 / VAT #145054825
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Mikey, I agree with you that this turned a while ago from a discussion of technical requirements to a discussion of legal and policy requirements. ICANN - we requested another call on this. Is this something that can happen? Sent from my iPad On Sep 7, 2013, at 8:34 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
um…
i admit it -- i haven't been following this too closely. but this thread looks like it's turning into a policy discussion rather than a "technical requirements" discussion.
could somebody kinda bring me up to speed on the state of play of the underlying policies?
sorry to be such a dolt. the PGP discussion fit in my expectations for what's supposed to happen on this list, but this seems a bit far afield. didn't most of these issues go through some kind of policy process already?
thanks,
mikey
On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:13 PM, "Rob Golding" <rob.golding@astutium.com> wrote:
The proposal is to show a warning message when filling the URS procedure if the domain name is within the last month of validity, explaining that the domain name may be deleted during the URS process and the process will be terminated.
Certainly _if_ the domain is (actually) deleted (i.e. has gone through expiry/redemption/whatever all the way to the final-actual-definate 'really is' deletion, then yes, that should end the URS
2. The text in requirement 9 "Registry Operator MUST offer the option for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name registrations for up to one year from the date the domain name was Suspended", sounds like the renew command behavior needs to change for URS Suspension domains
Why ? Allowing them to renew (at the Registrar) if it _expires_ makes sense.
Allowing it to be extended 174 days before expiry by 365 days ( 1 year ) will break all sorts of things.
The renew command should extend from the prior expiration date and not the date the domain name was suspended
Absolutely.
However I don't agree that 'random-3rd-party' (URS complainant) shouldn't be able to just 'renew' (extend) the registration of a domain name *unless* it's expired/expiring.
I recommend that the registries allow for the renew of URS Suspension domains and leave it up to the Registrars to ensure that the renew is done at most once for URS Suspension domains, by the URS Complainant, according to the Registry-Registrar Agreement.
Having the registry reject any renewal for > 1 year (and for a 2nd time) on a URS locked domain (with such restrictions to be removed when the URS lock is removed) does make the most sense.
Registry Requirement 9: In cases where a URS Complainant (as defined in the URS Rules) has prevailed, Registry Operator MUST offer the option for the URS Complainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's registration (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD).
No, not option by the *registry operator* given to the *urs complainant*
Has to be the registrar renewing it ... wording is wrong.
Can be written much simpler as
== Registry Requirement 9: Registry Operator MUST allow REGISTRAR OF RECORD to extend the registration of (renew) a URS Suspended Domain Name a maximum of one period whilst domain is USR locked (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD). == Then nothing else about who pays or who requests it etc is necessary.
Registry Operator MAY collect the renewal fee paid by the URS Complainant for the URS Suspended domain name from the sponsoring Registrar of the domain name.
They wont if the renewal fee wasn't paid to the registrar !
The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator's TLD that the Registrar MUST accept and process payments for the renewal of a domain name by a URS Complainant in cases where the URS Complainant prevailed.
There can be no "MUST" - we -like most countries - have restrictions on who we can do business with. Similarly we always reserve the right to choose who we do business with - you cannot enforce a MUST on the Registrar to take money and/or process it from an "unknown entity" (the URS Complainant) - people who we may not legally, logically, ethically, any-other-ally accept money from or do business with.
Similarly, anyone we take money from has to have agreed to our terms and conditions, and if they haven't, we don't want their business or their money - USR complainant or otherwise.
The Registry Operator MUST specify in the Registry-Registrar Agreement for the Registry Operator's TLD that the Registrar MUST NOT renew a domain name to a URS Complainant who prevailed for longer than one year (if allowed by the maximum validity period of the TLD).
Is dealt with above.
3. Handling the URS Suspension of domains when the domain has child hosts GL - It's difficult to know which domain names depend on another domain name as separate entities administer separate sections of the DNS tree. However, this seems to be a corner case
It's be a criminal case if you redirected the child hosts or the responses from nameservers.
If foo.bar had ns1.foo.bar and blah.blah used ns1.foo.bar as a nameserver Then on suspension and redirection of foo.bar there *MUST* be no record for ns1.foo.bar so dns would "stop" - anything else would be illegal
I'm not sure there should even be any redirection of foo.bar itself going on
URS providers could have proper EPP
With the potential for them to screw up and the potential knock on 'damage' and claims that would ensue, I'd rather not see any URS provider have access to a computer, and make this all done on multi-part carbon-copy forms.
Regards, Rob -- rob.golding@astutium.com www.astutium.com 020 3475 2555 Astutium Ltd, 1st Floor, Number One Poultry, London, EC2R 8JR Registered in England (UK) / Company #8183381 / VAT #145054825
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
participants (2)
-
Mike O'Connor -
Neuman, Jeff