August 2016 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 31, 2016

Aug. 31, 2016

All, This is a great discussion and I believe we should document all of these pros and cons for WT1. Terminology (certification vs. accreditation vs. something else) will be important as we go down this path, but for now I would encourage us to stick to the concept of a voluntary process to pre-evaluate a registry-services provider such that it would not require a “re-evaluation” every single time it was associated with a new TLD application. This is the concept that I think of when we talk about this subject. All of the other issues we will need to address as well. Are they under contract with ICANN? If so, what does that contract look like? If they are under contract, would that be more akin to the types of MoUs that they have with EBEROs, Escrow Providers, etc. or more like a contract that they have with registrars? Under what circumstances, if any, would they need to be re-evaluated? WT-1 now has this issue and we will re-circulate the notes that have the problems which we are trying to solve and benefits. The benefits of having a “pre-evaluation process” would include (a) having consistency in evaluation results, (b) improving competition by allowing other third parties to become RSPs, (c) presumably lower TLD application fees for registry operators (since that part of the evaluation would not have to be performed every time), (d) lessening overall TLD application processing time. We can post the other benefits we came up with. We also need to document the negatives that have been pointed out such that if we did establish this pre-approval process, we design that process in such a way to avoid the negatives. Hope that all makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:54 PM To: 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin(a)neustar.biz>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele(a)blacknight.com>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk(a)nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services We should consider whether “accreditation” might be the better concept – if we have a perpetually open round top levels may become the new second levels as new brands roll out, reducing the dependence on the registrar layer. I’m not wed to the idea, but I see back-end registry service providers becoming increasingly important in the ecosystem. “Accreditation” would not only speed evaluation, but could provide some level of buying comfort to a potential new registry (similar to what registrar accreditation does for the second level end user). For what it’s worth and not in any way dogmatic. Just thinking out loud. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy(a)paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation. There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Rubens The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important. Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone. Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things. Both options create a form of standard. As for the data – I disagree. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=…> http://blacknight.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQG…> http://www.blacknight.press<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=…> - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQ…> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DQMGaQ…> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DQMGaQ&…> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk(a)nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> escreveu: What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider. Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition. While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt. I'm neutral on wording. Rubens

2 1

Provision of back-end registry services
by Austin, Donna Aug. 29, 2016

Aug. 29, 2016

Hi All A working group of the RySG has been formed to consider a number of topics being discussed as part of this PDP. On Friday I posted the following email to the list, which resulted in quite a bit of discussion. I'm working through the ensuing discussion and will attempt to provide a summary for this group. Sara, I think RSP Accreditation will be discussed as part of WG 1 and request that this input be taken into account. I repost my email to this list for information and also to encourage more discussion on the topic. ___ As RSP Accreditation was identified as a high priority, and as Neustar is one of the leading RSP as a result of the new gTLD program, I'd like to start a discussion on the path forward. I've just finished listening to the recording from the GDD summit on the topic of certification of back-end registry providers. As some of you may recall, during that session Sean Kaine from Neustar requested that we step back from the solution, ie. RSP Accreditation and try to identify the problems we're trying to solve in order to be sure that we have the correct solution. Sean also acknowledged as part of his intervention that accreditation may well be the answer, but let's be sure we understand what problems we're trying to solve first. I acknowledge that many may consider this to be a dissenting point of view, but I would ask this group if we could at least have the discussion. I understand that many believe these discussions have been had before, but I would argue that those were largely absent the experience we have had since as a result of the implementation of the new gTLD program and 1000+ registry operators going live. I think it would also be helpful to define what we mean when we say 'accreditation'. It is possible that it means different things to different people and in this regard it would be helpful to have a common understanding. It may be that we come up with a few different versions of what 'accreditation' means and find that some of these are more palatable than others. I admit that I don't have a fully developed idea of what 'accreditation' actually means in this context, but I do expect that there are a number of ways that 'accreditation' could be achieved. Some of the concerns that Neustar has with accreditation are as follows: * The potential to create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in order to achieve accreditation * ICANN being responsible for the development and implementation of any accreditation program-I think we'd all agree that ICANN does not have a good track record in this regard. * Ability to maintain product differentiation * Creating another contracted party within ICANN-if a contract is required and fees are to be paid to ICANN in order to be accredited then RSPs could potentially create their own stakeholder group within the GNSO, ie a third party in the CPH * What are the implications, if any, on the Registry Agreement? To help us move forward in the manner I'm suggesting, I've identified some of the problems I believe we're trying to solve acknowledging that this list is not exhaustive: * The RSP needs the ability to interact directly with ICANN with regard to technical issues. * Streamline the 2012 new gTLD processes for any future round: o Remove the need for the same RSP to undergo the same PDT for every registry operator o Streamline the application process as it relates to the technical requirements o Make provision for applicants to select RSPs after securing the TLD o Find a more efficient way to swap out RSPs Following the discussion at the GDD Summit, ICANN staff committed to synthesize the discussion, and come back to us with next steps. I don't believe this has happened, but based on some of the chat on our call earlier this week it does seem that some work that is going on in this regard. I think it would be helpful to our discussion to understand what the status of what that work is and where it's headed. Looking forward to everyone's thoughts. Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin(a)neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

1 0

First Meeting
by avri doria Aug. 17, 2016

Aug. 17, 2016

Hi, As announced, our first meeting is schedule for Tuesday 16 August at 15UTC. You should have all received an invitation already. The meeting will last 1 hour and as this is the first meeting, I will be chairing, hopefully for the last time. The Agenda for this first meeting: 0) Review Agenda 1) Discuss SOI and the like - All participants in the group must submit SOI, preferably before the first meeting. For the most part, members of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures group will have already done so, but anyone who has not done so is requested to take care of this. 2) Pick Leadership for the Track 1 Sub Team. This can be one person or several who share the responsibilities, it is up to the group. The requirement is for at least one person to take on the task. Responsibilities include: * Coordinating the efforts of the Sub Team * Communicating the status of the Sub Team to the rest of the leadership team and the full WG. This includes participating in a weekly leadership call to keep the work moving and coordinated. * Working with staff and the WG co-chairs as needed to get the work done, which includes developing the content for the full WG meetings and WG reports. * Acting with neutrality toward the Sub Team participants and the issues being dealt with within the group in the effort to help the group come to consensus on preliminary recommendations. All recommendation will be brought to the full group for discussion and possible approval as PDP WG recommendations. I suggest that there be a discussion on this list before the meeting where anyone who wishes to volunteer speaks up. Also feel free to nominate those who you believe would be good in the role. Note that that 2 co-chairs of the WG have disqualified themselves from this role. A list of Sub Team participants can be found at <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493239> The decision on Sub Team leadership is the first consensus decision the group needs to make. 3) Discussion on Sub Team meeting schedule. The current plan it to rotate all the Sub Team meetings between two time slots: 15UTC and 20UTC across all 5 days of the week. Each team will be expected to meet at least every other week, but will be able to meet more often if the Sub Team decides it is necessary. While scheduling outside these two time bands is theoretically possible, the current schedule of other meetings makes that challenging. It is also possible to add a third time band or to stick to a single 1 time slot as the Sub Team decides. 4) Walk through the work items for the Sub Team. These are found at <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732> Among the first tasks of the Sub Team will be to decide: * how they want to work through the issues, * to look at prioritization of issues * to refine the schedule currently posted for these activities. The current schedule is found at: <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001972/Policy%20Developm…> In this first meeting we will only talk through the work items for clarification, the work will start in earnest with the next meeting, but it would be good to keep these issues in mind. One note: Among the items on this Sub Teams list is: * Accreditation Programs: As there appears to be a limited set of technical service and Escrow providers, would the program benefit from an accreditation program for third party service providers? If so, would this simplify the application process with a set of pre-qualified providers to choose from? Are there other impacts that an accreditation program may have on the application process? As this conversation already has been discussed a bit in the full group as an issue that might be able to proceed in parallel with the work of the PDP WG, the group is invited to consider taking this up early in its schedule. 5) AOB - if there is time. Thanks and talk to you then avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

7 7

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 16 August
by Julie Hedlund Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 16 August. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track 1 Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+1+Meetings. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 16 August 1. Leadership for the Track 1 Sub Team: See Sub Team participants at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493239. Action Items: Sara Bockey and Christa Taylor have volunteered to be Co-Chairs. 2. Discussion on Sub Team meeting schedule: Action Items: Staff will explore adding times that could work for members who are in APAC. Discussion Notes: · Current proposed schedule is Tuesdays alternating between 1500 and 2000 UTC, every other week. The next meeting is in 3 weeks. · Consider other times as they do not work with APAC. · Each team will be expected to meet at least every other week, but will be able to meet more often if the Sub Team decides it is necessary. 3. Work Plan/Schedule – See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001972: Discussion Notes: · Adjust the schedules so that we have something that is realistic. · Consider prioritization. · Consider whether some need to be added or grouped with others. · Letter from the Board to the GNSO Council. Question of whether to prioritize some items. Sent a note to Paul McGrady, Council Liaison, on how the Council wants to proceed. Council will discuss at its meeting on 01 September. 4. List of Topics -- See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732: Discussion Notes: · Accreditation program -- consider whether to develop a parallel process/activity. · Discuss how to track topics to the work plan. Work plan schedule can be added to. · Suggestion to separate policy issues from implementation issues. · Applicant support programs -- may extend to capacity building programs. · Look at comments from CC1. · Question: There is an item from Work Track 2 marked for moving to WT1: "TLD Rollout: Was adequate time allowed for rollout of TLD? When should recurring fees due to ICANN begin? - Suggestion to move this topic to Track 1." We should agree or disagree, and if agree, incorporate it. See after the first discussion of Track 2.

1 0

WT1 Co-chairs
by avri doria Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Hi, We were luck enough to have Sara Bokey volunteer as a co-chair during the meeting. Since then it was pointed out that Christa Taylor had also volunteered to co-chair by marking her name with yellow in the signup. I missed that, though I do think someone mentioned it in the chart during the call. So I am very happy to announce that we have a group of volunteers for co-chair. On the assumption that there is no objection (please let the list know if there is one) I turn over the leadership of this WT1 to Christa and Sara. Thanks again, avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Aug. 16, 2016

Aug. 16, 2016

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC. <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 16 August 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the first call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/0QisAw Karen Yu:Hi all, this is Karen Yu from ZDNS joining. Steve Coates:I will buy drinks for the volunteer, at least twice. Rubens Kuhl:I got the impression that Christa Taylor volunteered when filing up the names for this work track. Christopher Dennett:Is there a way to have a rolling leadership? Sara Bockey:I've never chaired anything. would be willing to try cochairing with someone Donna Austin, Neustar:I do not Jon Nevett:Go Sara!!! Steve Coates:I'll 2nd Sara. Donna Austin, Neustar:object that is Laura Watkins (Nominet):As a newbie to being on a WG I don't feel I have enough background experience to take on this role. I am happy to help with drafting or coordinating inputs where I can. Laura Watkins (Nominet):No objections to Sara co-Chairing Sara Bockey:sure. Sara Bockey:I will need direction LOL Jeff Neuman:Sara - We will help you Sara Bockey:thank you jeff Ashley Roberts:Thanks Sara Jeff Neuman:Glad to see you join the leadership team :) Sara Bockey:audio? Jeff Neuman:@sara can you hear ICANN staff Sara Bockey:no Jeff Neuman:Audio is on Julie Hedlund:@ Terri -- can you check Sara's audio? Terri Agnew:@Sara, to active your mic, select telephone icon top tool bar and follow prompts Michael Flemming:yes, these hours are rather difficult for ALAC members Terri Agnew:OR, select audio tab /dial out Michael Flemming:anything before 17 utc is workable from here Rubens Kuhl:Besides the work items already listed for this work track, the one for work track 2 lists a few items in red, 3 of them suggested to move to WT1. Rubens Kuhl:They are: Rubens Kuhl:"TLD Rollout: Was adequate time allowed for rollout of TLD? When should recurring fees due to ICANN begin? - Suggestion to move this topic to Track 1." Rubens Kuhl:"Misc - Suggestion to add selection and guidance provided to New gTLD Program service providers. Was brought up in the context of objection service providers, so may be more appropriate for Track 3. Or if the topic is to be broadened to all service providers, perhaps Track 1." Michael Flemming 2:sorry, I meant apac hours Donna Austin, Neustar:the Council will have a discussion on 1 September Rubens Kuhl:GNSO Council will likely forward the question to the WG... Karen Yu: Agree with Michael on the schedule, this could be difficult for APAC participants. Karen Yu:Thank you Avri. Avri Doria:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732 Terri Agnew:Will add Carlos to apology list for today's meeting Kurt Pritz:How do these items tie to the items in the schedule we had up earlier. Each one of these items should map to an item listed on the schedule. It seems to mer that each item on the schedule, e.g., Application Fees, can be scheduled and addressed. I am not sure we can schedule or ever fully address a work item entitled, "is the AGB the right implementation of the GNSO policy." That item and other are not sufficiently defined in order to plan our work.\ Rubens Kuhl:I think that this, and all work tracks, should sort out policy issues from implementation issues so we can move faster on both kinds of issues. Rubens Kuhl:There is an item from Work Track 2 marked for moving to WT1: "TLD Rollout: Was adequate time allowed for rollout of TLD? When should recurring fees due to ICANN begin? - Suggestion to move this topic to Track 1." . We should agree or disagree, and if agree, incorporate it. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Rubens. I will make sure to address in the WT 2 meeting Sara Bockey:thanks all Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Thank you all. Jeff Neuman:Thanks! Julie Hedlund:Thanks everyone. Have a great day! Ashley Roberts:Thanks Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all, congrats Sara! Rubens Kuhl:Bye... Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH:Bye ALl

1 0