Subject: [provreg] ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP extensions?

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:12:03 +0000

The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications was published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed that it requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit trademark claims/registration related data over EPP.

Since the implementation of the TMCH is required for all operators of a new gTLD, i was wondering whether there is already work going on regarding specification of those EPP extensions? It would certainly not make much sense if every backend operator of a new gTLD invents their own schema/extension in order to support those required new data fields (registrars will certainly not appreciate those multiple extensions as well..). 

Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP implementation).

Comments are highly appreciated.

thanks

Alex Mayrhofer
Head of R&D @ nic.at

---

From: Klaus Malorny <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:46:54 +0200

On 17/04/12 12:12, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications was
> published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed that it
> requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit trademark
> claims/registration related data over EPP.
>
>

Hi,

can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have missed that. 
Thanks in advance.

Klaus

---

From: Luis Muñoz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:08:15 -0400

Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Therefore, if no work has yet been performed on the specification of
>those extensions in an internet draft, i think it makes sense to bundle
>forces among new gTLD backend operators in order to create such an
>extension. (Apart from that, i would also appreciate informal tech
>contacts to other emerging new gTLD backend operators, in order to
>discuss other operational / technical issues around the EPP
>implementation).

The extensions and the overall process need to be discussed and worked on. It would be interesting to add test sites to that work. Perhaps that could be shared?

Count me in...

-lem

---

From: Theo Kramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:25:42 +0200

> The extensions and the overall process need to be discussed and worked on. It would be interesting to add test sites to that work. Perhaps that could be shared?

Ditto

-- 
Regards
Theo

---

From: "Jan Jansen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:33:36 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

Alexander is probably referring to
https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Home
and more specific to
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-Draft-13apr12.pdf
which contains some hints to extensions on the epp scheme.

Notice that these are all draft documents. The 'claims'/notification
part might be of particular interest too since it involves a lot of
interaction between various parties including registry - registrar and
registrar - registrant exchange of confirmation.

-jan-

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

---

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:25:33 +0000

> can you give me a short pointer to that specification? I must have missed

Sorry, i should have added the link to my initial message. Here you go:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-Draft-13apr12.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1334362955253

cheers,

Alex

---

From: "Linlin Zhou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:13:12 +0800

In this draft, it emphasizes the IDN readiness. "The Clearinghouse will
accept trademark information in its native form (i.e., using the Unicode
character set); specific variant character mappings must be handled by the
registry." But it leaves to the Registry to handle IDN variants.

When there's a variant domain registration, shall we check all the variant
domains for several times with TMCH if no EPP extension is available?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Alexander Mayrhofer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:26 PM
> To: Klaus Malorny; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [provreg] ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP
> extensions?
> 
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/31176258/TMC-Model-D
> raft-13apr12.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1334362955253
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Alex
>

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:45:33 +0000

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Alexander Mayrhofer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 6:12 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [provreg] ICANN TMCH draft specifications available - EPP
> extensions?
> 
> The current version of ICANN's trademark clearinghouse specifications
> was published on April 13th. Looking through that document, i noticed
> that it requires a certain set of EPP extensions in order to transmit
> trademark claims/registration related data over EPP.
> 
> Since the implementation of the TMCH is required for all operators of a
> new gTLD, i was wondering whether there is already work going on
> regarding specification of those EPP extensions? It would certainly not
> make much sense if every backend operator of a new gTLD invents their
> own schema/extension in order to support those required new data fields
> (registrars will certainly not appreciate those multiple extensions as
> well..).
> 

Jim Gould and I are interested in working on a standard extension or extensions for Verisign, but I'm worried about the timing of the need for these specs and ICANN's launch schedule. Coming to agreement on a standard approach in a short amount of time is going to be a challenge.

Scott

---

From: Gregory Berezowsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:42:11 -0400

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <[email-masked]
> wrote:

> Jim Gould and I are interested in working on a standard extension or
> extensions for Verisign, but I'm worried about the timing of the need for
> these specs and ICANN's launch schedule. Coming to agreement on a standard
> approach in a short amount of time is going to be a challenge.
>

I am also interested in participating on standardizing this. At Afilias, we
have similar concerns on the timing.

---

From: Francisco Obispo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:10:26 -0700

+1

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 24, 2012, at 6:42 AM, Gregory Berezowsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I am also interested in participating on standardizing this. At Afilias, we have similar concerns on the timing.
>

---

From: Wil Tan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:10:46 +1000

> we have similar concerns on the timing.
Cloud Registry is also willing to contribute towards standardizing this.
There is at least a small amount of overlap of requirements between the
TMCH flows and the launchphase draft that Gavin and I wrote.

The Launchphase extension has provisions for carrying the "sunrisecode"
(called "pvrc" in the draft) but defines an "application" object which we
think is a common need during sunrise and other launch phases where
multiple requests for a domain name is allowed. In theory we could
integrate the claims data / ack bits from the TMC draft into it, but it
doesn't seem the most elegant and smells like scope creep. On the other
hand, I think registries and registrars would probably want to see a single
extension rather than multiple.

The draft expired in the midst of the gTLD application period "extension"
but I've made some progress integrating some of James Gould's comments into
the draft and we're preparing to work on it further. We're open to
collaboration:
https://github.com/cloudregistry/EPP-Launch-Phase-Extension-Specification

.wil