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

[Francisco Obispo <[e-mail]>]

>>> <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




2161 San Joaquin Hills Rd.
Newport Beach, CA, 92660
off. +1.345.749.6284
fax. [phone]