Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase

[Jothan Frakes <[e-mail]>]

I should have been more specific on this

I tested a check command for the string 'jo--than' against a suite of
registries and many returned that the name was available, which is
incorrect as it should be blocked by policy.  XN-- is the only exception to
the restriction on dashes at third and fourth position.

Verisign - you're good on this - Uniregistry and Afilias and Centralnic as
well.  Others - mileage varies.


Jothan Frakes
Tel: [phone]


On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Jothan Frakes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Just a heads-up - I am testing out some Universal Acceptance stuff for a
> document with the Domain Name Association, and I have found that some of
> your registries (hosted or directly) are not correctly inhibiting dashes in
> the third and fourth positions in check commands.
>
> Should that be on the Registrar to enforce or the Registry?  IMHO both but
> think the latter is the right place.
>
>
> Jothan Frakes
> Tel: [phone]
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Gould, James <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>  Jody,
>>
>>  I believe that passing the active phase is more straight forward as
>> opposed to defining a special sub-phase like “extended" to drive the
>> behavior.  Having the claims check return “exists=true” only when a claims
>> notice is required on the create based on the active phase should be able
>> to handle the use case of releasing domains post the claims phase and also
>> applies to the claims phase.  All names that have matching trademarks
>> during the claims phase will require a claims notice on create, so the
>> behavior is consistent.
>>
>>  I’m still not sure why a client would want to know whether there is a
>> matching trademark when a claims notice is not required on the create.
>> Does anyone see a need for this?  Since the “claims” phase would always
>> return “exists=true” for domains that have matching trademarks, a client
>> could pass the “claims” phase when the active phase is not the “claims”
>> phase to obtain this information.  Of course servers would need to support
>> referencing a past “claims” phase to support this use case.  The change in
>> the text should support the logic that I previously posted before, which I
>> extend to support addressing the optional matching trademark past the
>> claims phase use case.  Is this use case really needed?
>>
>>
>>    1. During claims phase with a claims check command
>>       1. If domain has matching trademark
>>          1. return exists=true
>>       2. else
>>          1. return exists=false
>>        2. During post claims phase with a claims check command
>>       1. If domain was released post claims phase start and is within 90
>>       days of release and has matching trademark
>>          1. return exists=true
>>       2. else
>>          1. return exists=false
>>        3. *During post claims phase with a claims phase check and
>>    passing “claims” as the phase (optional matching trademark past the claims
>>    phase use case)*
>>       1. *If domains has matching trademark *
>>          1. *return exists=true*
>>       2. *else*
>>          1. *return exists=false*
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. During claims phase with a create command
>>       1. If domain has matching trademark
>>          1. claims notice is required
>>       2. else
>>          1. claims notice is NOT required
>>        2. During post claims phase with a create command
>>       1. If domain was released post claims phase start and is within 90
>>       days of release and has matching trademark return
>>          1. claims notice is required
>>       2. else
>>          1. claims notice is NOT required
>>
>>
>>  Thoughts?
>>
>>  —
>>
>>
>>  JG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> 703-948-3271
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
>> VerisignInc.com
>>
>>  On Jan 8, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Jody Kolker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>   From Francisco:
>>
>>  Thanks Jim for bringing this to the eppext.  This will definitely help
>> the post claims phase.
>>
>>  With the wording changes, is there still a way to determine if there’s
>> a trademark against the name regardless on whether or not the claims ack is
>> needed in the create domain?
>>
>>  This could be accomplished by leaving the “claims” implementation as it
>> is currently and introducing a sub-phase for claims named “extended”.  When
>> the sup-phase of “extended” is passed the results from Jim’s earlier email
>> would be below.
>>
>>
>>    1. During claims phase with a claims check command or post claims
>>    phase without a sub-phase of “extended”
>>       1. If domain has matching trademark
>>          1. return exists=true
>>       2. else
>>          1. return exists=false
>>        2. During post claims phase with a claims check command with a
>>    sub-phase of “extended”
>>       1. If domain was released post claims phase start and is within 90
>>       days of release and has matching trademark
>>          1. return exists=true
>>       2. else
>>          1. return exists=false
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. During claims phase with a create command or post claims phase
>>    without a sub-phase of “extended”
>>       1. If domain has matching trademark
>>          1. claims notice is required
>>       2. else
>>          1. claims notice is NOT required
>>        2. During post claims phase with a create command with a
>>    sub-phase of “extended”
>>       1. If domain was released post claims phase start and is within 90
>>       days of release and has matching trademark return
>>          1. claims notice is required
>>       2. else
>>          1. claims notice is NOT required
>>
>>  This would still allow a registrar to determine if a claim currently
>> exists on a domain when a claim period does not exist for the TLD (the
>> current implementation).  From a registrar perspective, I’m not sure if
>> determining if a domain has a claim when all claims periods have expired is
>> needed.  This implementation also would require additional work by all
>> registrars to support if adopted, while the implementation from Jim’s first
>> post would require only updates by the registries which would be better for
>> widespread adoption.
>>
>>  Thoughts?
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>  Jody Kolker
>>  319-294-3933 (office)
>>  319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles
>> Beadnall ([e-mail]) with any feedback.
>>
>>  This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only
>> by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information.
>> If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the
>> sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and
>> its attachments.
>>
>>   *From:* Gould, James [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 08, 2015 12:24 PM
>> *To:* Francisco Obispo
>> *Cc:* Jody Kolker; [e-mail]; Tran, Trung
>> *Subject:* Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a
>> "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase
>>
>>  Francisco,
>>
>>   I would have gone with the sub-phase approach as well, since if the
>> behavior between the two claims phases are consistent (e.g. requirement for
>> claims check and claims notice) I’m not sure the value in defining a new
>> top-level phase name.  Is there a material behavior change between the two
>> phases and is the concept of an extended claims phase a generic use case?
>> We have stuck with the standard set of “sunrise”, “claims”, and “open”
>> phases.  Have others utilized the use of sub-phases or have created custom
>> top-level phase names to meet their needs?  If so, can you share your
>> scheme?  It would be good to know if there are any common patterns.
>>
>>   Thanks,
>>
>>   —
>>
>>
>> JG
>>
>> <image001.png>
>>
>>
>> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> 703-948-3271
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
>> VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>>
>>   On Jan 8, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Francisco Obispo <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     <launch:phase>  SHOULD contain the value of "claims" to indicate the
>>        claims launch phase.  A value other than "claims" MAY be used to
>> pass the claims notice for domain names outside of the claims phase.
>>
>>
>>
>>   Once a TLD has ended the mandatory 90 day period of “claims” a
>> registry might decide to call it something else.
>>
>>   We are not supporting extended claims, but we had to support an
>> extended sunrise for the names on the ICANN names-collision block list (30
>> day period instead of a 60 day end-date sunrise), and we initially thought
>> about having a phase called “sunrise” with a sub-phase called “extended”
>> but we thought it would be too complicated for RARs to change their code,
>> so we decided just to trigger it by calling the phase “sunsrise”, but in
>> reality, a registry can call it anything they want in order to support it,
>> because they are different things.
>>
>>   Since there is no guidance on what the phases should be called, it
>> seems like we’re going to end up with discrete phase names for anything
>> that is not: claims or sunrise.
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Jan 8, 2015, at 11:35 AM, Gould, James <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> What do you mean by the extended claims phase?  Is there a past mail list
>> thread on this or is this a new issue?  Please clarify.
>>
>>
>>  *Francisco Obispo*
>> CTO - Registry Operations
>>
>> <Mail Attachment.png>
>>
>>
>> 2161 San Joaquin Hills Rd.
>>   Newport Beach, CA, 92660
>>   off. +1.345.749.6284
>>   fax. [phone]
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EppExt mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>>
>>
>