EPP LaunchPhase Extension: draft requirements and scope
Gavin Brown <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Organization | CentralNic Ltd |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear colleagues, Thanks to the list administrators for getting this mailing list back up and running. For those subscribers not on the regops list (http://nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/regops) there is a draft co-authored by myself and Wil Tan of CloudRegistry for an EPP extension to deal with so-called "sunrise" and "landrush" phases during the initial startup of a TLD. The draft can be found at this URL: https://github.com/wil/EPP-Launch-Phase-Extension-Specification Having spoken to several registrars and registries, I get the feeling that such a specification would be very valuable, especially since we expect to see hundreds of new TLDs going through sunrise and landrush phases in the next couple of years. Many registrars would appreciate being able to do a single development that can be reused for all new TLDs. Following discussions on regops and a brief meeting during the ICANN meeting in San Francisco last month, we've prepared a "first pass" of a requirements document to frame the scope and objectives for this extension. We are very keen to get feedback, especially from registrars and those who might offer "trademark clearinghouses" - these people are unlikely to be subscribers to this list, so if you know them, please reach out and ask them to participate. The initial requirements document is attached. Gavin. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Ltd Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 4985780. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR. _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg
LaunchPhase-Requirements.txt
(text/plain, 5.2 KB)
Requirements
--------------------
In Scope
----------
Module 5 of ICANN's gTLD Applicant Guidebook states:
"The registry operator must implement, at a minimum, either a Sunrise
period or a Trademark Claims service during the start-up phases for
registration in the TLD. These mechanisms will be supported by the
established Trademark Clearinghouse as indicated by ICANN."
This extension is designed to meet the requirements of registry
operators and registrars participating in the Sunrise period of a new
gTLD during the start-up phase of the gTLD registry, and during the
additional "Landrush" period which has frequently followed the Sunrise
period during previous registry launches. During Sunrise and Landrush
periods, the registry operates under a different model to the standard
"first-come, first-served", "steady state" or "General Availability"
model. Specifically:
* domain names are *not* registered on a "first-come, first-served"
basis
Multiple applications for the same domain name may be received.
After an application is received, a <check> for the associated
domain name will still return an available result, as other
registrars may still submit application requests. The domain name
is only provisioned at the end of the specific phase of the
launch.
* All applications made during the Sunrise period must meet minimum
Sunrise Eligibility Requirements (SERs), which are validated by the
Trademark Clearinghouse
During the Sunrise period, all applications submitted to the
registry must include proof of eligibility. This may include
details of an associated trademark, or a token from the Trademark
Clearinghouse indicating that the applicant's eligibility has
already been validated.
* Contentious applications for the same domain name are resolved via
an out-of-band process
At the end of the Sunrise and/or Landrush period, all applications
are processed by the registry operator. Where there is only a
single application for a given domain name, then this domain name
is immediately provisioned and associated with the applicant, and
the applicant's registrar. Where there are multiple applications
for the same domain name, an out-of-band process such as a
mediation or auction process is used to determine the final
registrant of the domain.
Out of scope
--------------------
This extension does not attempt to solve any other use cases. In
particular, it is not meant for "steady-state" operations, so any use
case that may require an extension beyond a phase with a defined window
of time will not be addressed. For example, if a registry is to be run
with ongoing eligibility (or "nexus") requirements, then a separate
extension should be used for these requirements.
1. This extension does not specify any mechanism for performing
validation of submitted data. It is assumed to be out of band.
2. Management of the application object on the server side (updating
status, cancelling an application) [see notes]
Requirements for Registrars
---------------------------
* the extension should not change the semantics of existing commands,
objects or object elements, or define new object types
* the extension should allow for applications to be submitted, queried
(both during and after the launch phase) and cancelled
Requirements for Registries
---------------------------
* the extension should not change the semantics of existing commands,
objects or object elements, or define new object types
* The data elements for Sunrise Eligibility Requirements must allow for
all possible data required by the Trademark Clearinghouse
* the extension should allow for multiple clearinghouses, and provide a
way for registrars to indicate which clearinghouse has been used to
validate an application
* the extension should provide a means to communicate the final outcome
of an application after the completion of the Sunrise/Landrush period
Requirements for Trademark Clearinghouses
-----------------------------------------
* Any data passed to the registry by the registrar as part of Sunrise
Eligibility Requirements should be complete
NOTES
* the above requirements are a first pass and we are very keen on
getting feedback from all three stakeholder groups
* this extension will be agnostic on contact (doesn't matter if registry
is thin/thick) and host mappings (doesn't matter which style is used:
hostObj / hostAttr)
* can work with instant validation => in which case, registry may
choose to reject requests that fail online validation, or place object
into "validated" status immediately if it passes online validation.
* no extension on poll messages - or is that the best way to communicate
results of end-of-phase processing?
* semantics of <check>
* should we allow updating of lp data e.g. trademark_name?
* [question in the draft] should we allow multiple status values? For
example, it may make sense to have both the "validated" and
"allocated" status values.
* proposal: adding a ID "type" field
* do we need to specify management of the object on the backend, i.e.
updating status, deleting an application, etc.?