Thomas, As a co-author of Launch Phase Mapping going back 5 years and the one that added the “Domain names may be made available only in unique launch phases, whilst remaining unavailable for concurrent launch phases” language to the draft, I’m aware of the intent. Wil and Gavin can also weigh in on the intent. The intent was for the launch phases to be associated with the TLD (or zone), where there may be a policy for launch phases that differentiates the availability of domain names. It was never intended or foreseen that a launch phase would be used to group a set of domain names as a form of fee classification. We can agree to disagree on this topic.
Back to the question about adding support for a Phase Available Check Form to draft-ietf-regext-launchphase. You believe that it is needed and I believe that the existing draft meets the intended needs. I would like to hear from the registrars and registries in support for adding this feature or to keep the draft as is. Please share your thoughts publicly on the list or privately. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer [email protected] 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 8/14/17, 8:34 AM, "regext on behalf of Thomas Corte" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: James, On 2017-08-11 19:27, Gould, James wrote: > launch phases are not meant to be a method of grouping domain > names like premium domain names. Says who? As I pointed out in previous e-mails, the launch phase extension spec's wording "Domain names may be made available only in unique launch phases, whilst remaining unavailable for concurrent launch phases." clearly suggests otherwise. Aside from premium domain names, there are other examples where such a grouping may be necessary, such as when phases are used to introduce new IDN tables, or to make certain names available only to certain eligible registrants when a TLD is first launched. Determining the right phase for a name with a single EPP command should be possible in such scenarios. > I view overlapping launch phases as > a corner case that is already handled by > draft-ietf-regext-launchphase. It is, but obviously not in a way that's satisfactory for registrars or registries. Trial-and-error probing for the right phase isn't a solution I'd deem suitable. Best regards, Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: [email protected] Germany _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
