[cabfpub] FW: [cabfman] ICANN Changes relating to gTLDs

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Thu Aug 21 16:55:25 UTC 2014


Correct. But that should only affects names that were already on the SLD
Block list - this just clarifies if it goes through the Alternate Path for
registration, which is and was already onerous in and of itself.


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Bruce Morton <bruce.morton at entrust.com>
wrote:

>  It would be great if some CAs could provide their experience, but I have
> seen that a registry that is in production will not register a domain name
> until the collision management period is over.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:36 PM
> *To:* Bruce Morton
> *Cc:* Stephen Davidson; CABFPub
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] FW: [cabfman] ICANN Changes relating to gTLDs
>
>
>
> This doesn't change the timing at all. Current gTLDs are limited for when
> they can accept registrations - based on our own previously agreed
> timelines with ICANN.
>
>
>
> This just clarifies that in the period until then, the names be made
> resolvable to the sentinel IP, as a way of signalling to users who WILL BE
> affected by this delegation will receive some awareness (e.g. assuming
> they're not subscribed to GTLD announcements)
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Bruce Morton <bruce.morton at entrust.com>
> wrote:
>
>  This attempt at collision occurrence management appears to throw another
> delay into the time period a domain user can register a domain. Is there
> any discussion in extending or changing the 120 day gTLD rule?
>
>
>
> Thanks, Bruce.
>
>
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ryan Sleevi
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:16 PM
> *To:* Stephen Davidson
> *Cc:* public at cabforum.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cabfpub] FW: [cabfman] ICANN Changes relating to gTLDs
>
>
>
> Stephen,
>
>
>
> Just to clarify: New TLDs are required to do controlled interruptions at
> the <TLD> level for 90 days. So all new TLDs should be sending to the
> signal IP (127.0.53.53)
>
>
>
> The second level list is an existing concept - the SLD Block List - and it
> requires that *existing* TLDs take these second level through the
> controlled interruption period too.
>
>
>
> I just wanted to highlight that it's just just second-level domains
> getting interrupted - the TLDs will be interrupted as well.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Stephen Davidson <
> S.Davidson at quovadisglobal.com> wrote:
>
>  Hi Ryan – sure.
>
> Best, Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi at google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:34 PM
> To: Stephen Davidson
> Cc: management at cabforum.org
> Subject: Re: [cabfman] ICANN Changes relating to gTLDs
>
>
>
> I'd be happy to respond to this on the public list.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Stephen Davidson <
> S.Davidson at quovadisglobal.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> FYI: ICANN recently changed the rules in a way that may affect customers
> who wish to register new gTLD domains to “legitimize” their previous use of
> internal server names in SSL.
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-07-30-en
>
>
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/name-collision-assessment-04aug14-en.htm
>
> In summary:  each gTLD has a list of second level domains which ICANN has
> determined are potential name collisions.  ICANN has updated the
> requirements for Registries, requiring them to implement 90-day "controlled
> interruption" as the notification measure to alert parties that they may be
> leaking queries intended from private namespaces to the public DNS (second
> link above).
>
> Best, Stephen
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Management mailing list
> Management at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/management
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140821/f0191923/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list