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

[Michael Holloway <[e-mail]>]

Hi all

Just a thought; would it not be more appropriate to facilitate this on 
the TMDB by adding a lookup based on label. This could return a simple 
true/false value, or all the info returned on a CNIS lookup exception 
notice_id etc.

The problem with having and post claims service on the EPP server 
without changing the phase name is that the EPP client then has to 
decide when /not/ to submit claims data in a domain_create if the domain 
has a claim. As it is, various registries are extending the claims 
periods past 90 days, so its contradictory to have extended claims and 
post claims defined the same way in the query but without a defined (or 
facilitated) way to differentiate the requirement for a domain_create.

I would be more comfortable with defining a specific sub_phase for the 
purpose, or even better skipping the middle man and going straight to 
the TMDB.

Cheers,
Michael

*Michael Holloway
Senior Systems Administrator**| Com Laude*
E: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>


On 01/13/2015 04:04 AM, Tran, Trung wrote:
> This works for me, Jim.  Though it’s not often, we have cases where 
> change in ownership of a domain might not occur if there’s trademark 
> against the name.  So a potential registrant might not want to buy an 
> existing registered name if there’s trademark against it in the TMCH.
>
> Thanks,
> Trung
> From: <Gould>, James <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Friday, January 9, 2015 at 11:27 AM
> To: Jody Kolker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Francisco Obispo <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, 
> "Tran, Trung" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: [eppext] draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase Support for a 
> "Claims Service" post the Claims Phase
>
>     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
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__VerisignInc.com&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=szebc6wpGwppUlrnEyVYLycmIErTch1EX1wsyS31LMM&m=a_JzT0U7GbcwWgKca9Yn1v1l7xxuwH3lVAP_eW0V09I&s=yC8iNOnjjvMIbW-gZsn7rA62FX8o8ZmCI14bhrQZ7TI&e=>
>
>     On Jan 8, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Jody Kolker <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]]
>>     *Sent:*Thursday, January 08, 2015 12:24 PM
>>     *To:*Francisco Obispo
>>     *Cc:*Jody Kolker;[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <x-msg://82/[e-mail]>
>>
>>     703-948-3271
>>     12061 Bluemont Way
>>     Reston, VA 20190
>>
>>     VerisignInc.com
>>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__verisigninc.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=szebc6wpGwppUlrnEyVYLycmIErTch1EX1wsyS31LMM&m=a_JzT0U7GbcwWgKca9Yn1v1l7xxuwH3lVAP_eW0V09I&s=3GJIlJDRYzqHAwoiiYIQ35ek_aOxjUrEB5OfZMjak-8&e=>
>>     On Jan 8, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Francisco Obispo
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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