Elaine, Using a small subset of the list does reduce the probability of a match, but it does not remove it completely, meaning that the claims check still needs to be invoked by the registrar with the chance, yet very small, that the registrar would need to interface with the CNIS to present the claims notice and submit the claims acknowledgement on the create. Claims defines the general flow of a TLD, meaning a phase, and really is not a service that is applicable to a very small subset of domains of the TLD. I still prefer the "Claims Lite" option that does not require any front end interface changes, but does provide additional visibility to ICANN and the trademark holders for the releasing and allocation of reserved names. JG James F. Gould Principal Engineer Verisign jgould@verisign.com<mailto:jgould@verisign.com> On Jun 18, 2014, at 2:02 PM, "Elaine Pruis" <elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co>> wrote: The easiest option is to verify against a small subset of the DNL Since the full DNL isn't checked, no claims will be presented after the mandatory 90 days for names that were available during that period. Claims would only be presented on names that come off the reserved list and are also on the DNL list. The "claims check" would be against a sub-list of the DNL list, instead of checking the entire list. This works for reserved names and for NXD names when they become available. This solution doesn't require much workflow change for registrars--just removing the "end date" for claims. It requires a bit of dev work for registry operators because we'd have to check a different list after the mandatory 90 days are up, but the cost would be significantly less. Jeff asked for some data to help guide the discuss, can we get an idea from the TMCH how many names on the DNL actually have been registered, and from registrars how many customers don't register after seeing a claims notice? We checked registrations in 90 TLDs against the DNL--the average number of names in our TLDs that are on the DNL is only 1%. This data is verifiable by checking zone files against the DNL. Considering the name collision block lists (the greatest source of reserved names, thousands in every TLD), on average only 0.47% of the names blocked for NXD are also on the DNL. Elaine Pruis Vice President, Operations ……………………………… …… …… elaine@donuts.co<mailto:elaine@donuts.co> +1 509-899-3161 <Donuts_Logo_Signature.png> On Jun 11, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: 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> [mailto:tmch-tech-bounces@icann.org<mailto:tech-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf OfJeffrey Eckhaus Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:27 PM To: tmch-tech@icann.org<mailto:tmch-tech@icann.org>; gtld-tech@icann.org<mailto: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 <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.