Re: Splitting the launch phase block in 2 parts

Thanks for your comments, Jan.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Jan Jansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> We will have to distinguish  two different phases
> 1. Sending in info to show a certain right
> 2. Applying for an extension linked to the right
>
>
Agreed, and the LP extension is indeed meant to cover a stripped down
version of the latter i.e. simply "applying for a domain without the
guarantee that it will be allocated."

An implementation could then choose to either:
1. not accept any other field (as in the case of land rush type launch
scenarios)
2. accept only a pre-verified code (pvrc) where it is used by the registry
to validate against a third party (probably trademark clearing house) using
an out-of-band mechanism.
3. accept either the pre-verified code or the set of fields that the
applicant may use to claim the right to a mark.


Actually these phases can be interchanged and often
> a code is used to link the 2 different phases.

As examples :
> .eu provided a code to a sunrise application that
> could be used to send in documentary evidence
>

This, as I understand, would mean that the "sending in documentary evidence"
step is out-of-band. In that case, this extension can be used as in #1
above.


> .co allowed to specify a code to register a name
> in sunrise that was verified against a clearing house
>
>
This is one of the primary use cases of the extension.



> If you want the EPP model to be extended to also
> include the data to show a certain 'right' than
> you will need a lot more than just a name, number
> and country. (Such as type of right, if the right
> has been given in concession, ...)
> Despite me being around IP lawyers for quite some
> time now, I always get the comment that I'm a
> technical guy and see this things way to simple.
>
>
This is where we really need the help of the trademark community i.e. people
like yourself and the IP lawyers you're referring to ;-)

Ideally, we'd define a set of elements to cover the majority of the use
cases and make them most/all optional, and let the implementation decide
what is required by policy.



> These are of course general remarks and I'm not
> certain how to get them into an EPP schema. But
> perhaps we should divide in an
> <lp:right> section (denoting the right) and an
> <lp:application> section (denoting the domain
> name application).
>
>
I think grouping the trademark-related fields into a parent element was also
suggested by Patrick Mavzek. I agree it's more logical to group them
together. I'm not sure if there's much to be gained from having the
<lp:application> container though.


The latter will be most easy to fill and could
> (should?) contain : domain name, phase,
> application id and/or pvrc.
> The first (lp:right) is more difficult. It will
> probably vary much from registry to registry.
> It depends on which rights you will allow to
> be applied for (eg: official TM, province/city/...,
> local business and many others).
>
>
Indeed. It is a tricky balancing act to have something generic enough for a
wide spectrum of use cases and yet maintaining simplicity and providing
semantically correct fields.


> On a much lighter note I would like to change the
> wording in the transition state from 'cancelled'
> to 'rejected' since for me 'cancel' involves an
> active action on the registrar side and this seems
> to be a much more 'passive' state change from the
> registrar view point.
>
>
This makes sense. Unless anyone objects, I will change it in the next
iteration of the draft.

.wil

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg