[gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix?

[Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One could argue that with the upcoming changes to whois and a switch to thick 
for all that this might be better handled by the registry ..
Or am I missing something?


--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:03 PM
To: Batteiger, Simonetta; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; 
gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Re: A possible fix?

Hi Simonetta.  The new policy lays out several situations under which an FOA 
would no longer be valid. T he problem discussed during today's call was:  How 
will the (would be) Gaining Registrar know that the FOA they are holding is 
invalid?

J.


From: <Batteiger>, Simonetta <simonetta@xxxxxxxx<mailto:simonetta@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 16:59
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight 
<michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, James Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: A possible fix?

Also sorry for having missed today's call.
I'm not entirely sure which problem you're trying to solve with the ideas below.
Is this about verifying if an FOA is still valid?
Simonetta

From: 
owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - 
Blacknight
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:53 PM
To: James M. Bladel; 
gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix?

Sorry I missed the call

James:

1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both?
2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a 
nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so 
I could be wrong)

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.co/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>
 [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM
To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix?

Hi folks.  Hope no one was discouraged following todays call.  These things are 
very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible!

So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by 
requiring two practices:

(1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots":  One to obtain the FOA, and one 
at Transfer execution.
(2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, 
ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be 
subject to a UDRP or TDRP.

Reasoning:  By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining 
Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This 
will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize 
the transfer.

Thoughts?

J.