- Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 - lists.icann.org

New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - 4th Meeting - Proposed Agenda
by Sara Bockey Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 2016

Dear All, The 4th meeting for Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach - will take place on Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC 20:00 PDT (Monday), 23:00 EDT (Monday), 04:00 London, 05:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/gw35mwt Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ The proposed agenda is as follows 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 4. Application Support 5. AOB Best regards, Sara Bockey sara bockey policy manager | GoDaddy™ sbockey(a)godaddy.com 480-366-3616 skype: sbockey This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

7 7

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Oct. 4, 2016

Oct. 4, 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, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 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 04 October 2016 Terri Agnew: Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on on Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC Terri Agnew: wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/-Qm4Aw Michael Flemming: Phil, you weere able to join us! Michael Flemming: Avri said she will be a few minutes late. Terri Agnew: thank you for the update Michael! Phil Buckingham: Lving and working Californian time this week ! Sara Bockey: hmmm Terri Agnew: @Sara, we are unable to hear you, please check your mute Terri Agnew: We can hear you now, thank you Sara. Jeff Neuman: Here were 7 reasons I gave on a previous email: 1. Will lead to lower application fees for registry operators.2. Greater initial choice in back end operators3. Quicker processing of applications if accreditation done in advance4. consistency In evaluation results for registry operator5. Quicker time to delegation as all pdt tests done in advance6. Increases portability of back end registry operators and simplifies Icann processes to change back end operators7. Could lessen costs and time for switching back end providers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): That ll makes sense to me Jeff avri: there are going to be multiple passes through each topic Michael Flemming: Jeff has his hand up Justine Chew: Steve has also circulated some notes on the RSP certfication brainstorming notes from Amsterdam Sara Bockey: yes, we are slated to dicuss this topic throughout this subteam - we need to discuss addtional topics but that doesnt mean we are done with this topic Rubens Kuhl: I think the answer to the "GDD Summit" part was "no", and that became an ask from contracted parties for future editions. Jeff Neuman: @Rubens: I am not sure there was an answer at the Summit, but there were flip charts that we did with many pros and cons Berry Cobb: Link to notes from GDD summit: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.2.8+Accreditation+Programs Rubens Kuhl: "no" as in not having more structured capture of what was said there, not in being pro or con. Jeff Neuman: Thanks Berry....there are some pretty extensive notes Jeff Neuman: Donna - Have you proposed other options? Michael Flemming: More or less, we need to look at the Pros and Cons of the issue. Michael Flemming: I think just going over what was discussed at the GDD Summit would provide for input on that side. Steve Chan 2: Proposals might be good to discuss in between meeting on email? Cecilia Smith: I agree with Michael. We can't rely on what was discussed/captured on who was present at the GDD Summit. Rubens Kuhl: One possible downside that is frequently mentioned is "race to bottom". Berry Cobb: This is also a link to the GDD summit recording for those that may want to listen to that part of the session on this topic. https://www.icann.org/gddsummit Unfortunately, I do not recall which day and time Accredidation was discussed. Sara Bockey: @Steve - agree. i made a note to have those notes recirculated to the group Michael Flemming: @Cecilia, in addition to that, I think the GDD Summit captured a majority of the discussion from Registries, but less applicants opinion. Michael Flemming: applicants as being non-BERO parties Rubens Kuhl: GDD Summit activity on this had a few groups working in parallel so recording might not be that much representative. It was also somewhat more geared towards change of backend for 2012 TLDs, although having a future procedure in context. Michael Flemming: It is a "base" Cecilia Smith: Back@ Michael (in agreement), there are many applicants that did not partiicipant at the GDD for reasons including $$, location and late timing of agenda topics. Michael Flemming: There was only one applicant that actually met the criteria for Applicant Support, correct? Michael Flemming: .Kids Michael Flemming: Cecilia has her hand up as well. Rubens Kuhl: .kids, but it's still in accountability mechanisms disputes and likely going to an auction. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I thought it was just me finding it hard to hear Christa Steve Chan 2: I believe three applied, one passed - .kids as Michael pointed out. Michael Flemming: .kids, .idn and .ummah Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Gld to see your hnd up Avri mine was about to go up Steve Chan 2: The other two that did not meet the criteria were .IDN and .UMMAH Steve Chan 2: Details regarding the program available here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Berry Cobb: Listed on microsite: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Justine Chew: Agree with Michael, + an indication of why the other 2 did not pass, to get an idea of how to help future applicants Steve Chan 2: @Berry, jinx. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): WAY too complicated Christa Taylor: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Rubens Kuhl: In trying to prevent gaming, JAS gamed itself to death. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and poorly advertised or pushed out to the ares one would think could benefit most Berry Cobb: $40K as I recall Christa Taylor: $37k Steve Chan 2: $47k Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): WAY too late Really the whole thing was Too Little effort made Too Late in the program Justine Chew: So, factors were cost, timing of program, complexity of application process or program Rubens Kuhl: .IDN was also blocked due to being a reserved name. Christa Taylor: $47k you have it right Steve Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yes we do need to go look it all over again Rubens Kuhl: IDN is the 3-letter code for Indonesia Cecilia Smith: So, just so I understand. It cost an applicant $47K to apply for applicant support. Only 3 applied and none were qualified? Sara Bockey: If anyone wants to view the google doc for this WG, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Michael Flemming: So in order to apply for help to applying for a TLD, you have to apply through JAS? This includes not only financial support but also help on the questions for the TLD Application Process? If thats the case, being required to apply for help through a separate process kind of defeats the purpose of asking for help on the TLD Application questions. Michael Flemming: Oxymoronish Michael Flemming: My understanding might not be up to speed so I will take time to go over the background material before offering points of discussion. avri: no, JAS awas the WG that recommended aspects of the program, The Board and Staff designed the Applicant Support Program. avri: one had to go through the SARP, which was a judging panel Steve Chan 2: I do not believe the support extended beyond application either (e.g., running the registry, paying registry fees) avri: there may have been some first year considerations but i do not remember off hand Rubens Kuhl: Board left the door open for considering initial or recurring support, but not commiting to any. avri: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Rubens Kuhl: A streamlined distribution network, possibly not requiring registrars, might also work for TLDs targeted at economically-restricted communities. avri: the ASP? not at all for brands. Michael Flemming: Yeah, my apologies. I need to do more background reading before jumping to conclusions. avri: that is a good idea - to get some of JAS support folks into a conversation. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Huge Issue Jeff I agree I din't think it should either avri: i mentioned that undr the rubric of severe penalties for failure. i twas totally based on the fea of gaming. Rubens Kuhl: I believe there were thresholds - One could fail applicant support but not fail evaluation if their points were not so bad. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Well said Avri... It was all rather frustrating re these aspects IMO Justine Chew: Capacity building would require resources. Is there any possibility to reduce complexity? Meet halfway? avri: and certainly before UA, was not all that possible anyway avri: sustanability also has different defintions in the global south avri: i.e lowe salries, lower overjhead cost &c. avri: pardon the typos, please Rubens Kuhl: http://www.dnsec.eg/ is trying to develop such capacities in the middle east, including arabic speaking countries. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Very true Avri Justine Chew: Yes, the support is needed if there is demand, so need to promote program also. Terri Agnew: The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 15:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): No OB Jeff Neuman: Thanks all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thnks everyone Bye for now Justine Chew: Cheers. Michael Flemming: Thank you! Cecilia Smith: thanks!! avri: good buch of substance discussed today. thanks avri: ... bunch ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Emily Barabas Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear All, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 September. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The MP3 recording is available at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar. Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: 20 September 2016 - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Work Plan Schedule/Subject Area and 4. Prioritization (continued) - Sara did a rough first pass at ordering categories and setting timeline, welcomes input (attached). - Current schedule: Alternate Tuesdays, rotating 3:00 UTC, 15:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC. - Sub team leads added timeline for community feedback to the overall timeline. The co-chairs have suggested providing 1-2 questions for CC2 or the group can send out its own request for community feedback. - Sara created a working document for the group, available in Google docs to help guide discussion. [Action Item: WG members are encouraged to add comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve…] - Topics/Questions for Work Track 1 -- no initial feedback provided. - The document originally had more background information. It is now more concise. Background information on each topic is available in the wiki. - Avri Doria: this is a good approximation for the topics for us to work on. 5. Accreditation Discussion (continued) - Sara Bockey: Task for today for the group: nail down terminology around accreditation program -- what are we looking to approve or certify them to do? - Paul McGrady: Primary goal if we decide to go forward with it - streamline the process, cut down number of people ICANN needs to review an application, drive down costs, increase accessibility of the marketplace for more businesses and organizations, including those unable to apply in the first round due to costs. - Jeff Neuman: We would be certifying that the provider meets or exceeds the technical requirements for the application process, so that applicants know there is a pool of providers that meet these criteria. We still need to determine those requirements. - Paul McGrady: Is this beneficial to backend providers or just applicants? - Jeff: It’s good for backend providers, too. They have certainty going in that they meet or exceed ICANN's requirements and can demonstrate this to applicants. Cheryl Langdon-Orr agrees. - Sara Bockey: Question 4 asks whether we should differentiate between new and existing providers who have already been through this process. - Jeff Neuman: Initially, he would require all backend providers to go through testing. He would not create criteria that go beyond those in the last applicant guidebook. It would be fair for everyone to go through the process at least once. Presumably it would be easy for existing providers to demonstrate they meet or exceed requirements. - Avri Doria: Wouldn't we need to consider the need for a periodic re-check? - Jeff Neuman: If this group determines that periodic checks are necessary, then yes. But maybe the periodic check can be satisfied by the fact that they are up and running, almost as more of an audit. Personal view: existing providers should not be treated differently from new providers. - Kurt Pritz: The accreditation program could be different than the requirements in the applicant guidebook. The accreditation program could demonstrate not only that the provider can operate the registry in accordance with technical requirements, but could also be a guarantee towards resiliency and stability. The criteria could include multiples of capacity to resist DDoS attacks and could address the latest threat matrices. These requirements might change over time, so the providers would need to prove that they are up to date. - Jeff Neuman: He likes what Kurt said. It would be good for the industry to have a check. But the fear is that ICANN is acting as a guarantor rather than certifying that providers meet minimum requirements. There is a risk of exposing ICANN to liability. If there's a way to do it that is voluntary or avoids having ICANN vouch for the providers’ capabilities, it’s a great idea. Maybe a third party could play a part in establishing the higher standard, or maybe this is left to the market. - Kurt Pritz: Correct, we are trying to improve resiliency but not guarantee it. - Laura Watkins: There are some concerns with the term “accredited,” as it has other connotations. Perhaps there is another more neutral term. - Jeff Neuman: Agrees that this term has raised concerns on the mailing list, as it implies that you have a legal agreement with ICANN. He prefers to move away from this term and prefers to say that ICANN is certifying that the provider meets or exceeds requirements. Does the term "certify" also have connotations that may raise concerns? Cheryl Langdon-Orr agrees with Jeff. - Sara Bockey: It sounds like we are talking about something between certification and accreditation. Certification is often a program to test and evaluate and accreditation is a formal declaration by a third party that the provider meets the standards. But what are the criteria we think are most important and who would perform the certification/accreditation? - Jeff Neuman: We don’t need to resolve criteria now. One option is to make a policy recommendation that it meets or exceeds requirements, and then kick it out to an implementation group or get input from WT4. WT4 could have some recommendations regarding criteria. We do not need to agree upon the specific criteria within this group. We can talk about the processes and procedures as appropriate. - Donna Austin: This is why we wanted to understand the problems we were trying to solve before we started talking about the solution. There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve. - Kurt Pritz: Agrees that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Vanda agrees, as well. - Avri Doria: There may also be criteria that we would want to add regarding the capability to support multiple applicants. That might be a criterion we would want to add beyond basic pre-testing. - Donna Austin: ICANN identified that the ability to test for multiple registry operators was a fail in the first round and something that should be remedied. For those RSPs that have been operating ROs from the first round they have been doing so in accordance with the requirements of the RA after going through PDT. There may be ways to adjust PDT to test for x number of registry operations and domains under management. - Jeff Neuman: It would be possible to ask questions on capacity and scalability. There may be ways to make educated predictions based on responses to written questions. But it is hard to directly test that. - Cheryl Landon-Orr: Do we need an action item to summarize issues for sub team 4? - Jeff Neuman: If this sub team makes a recommendation on this issue, it would go to the full group and then be referred to sub team 4. No immediate action item needed now. - Yasmin Omer: Has this group made a distinction between 1) a RSP demonstrating its ability to manage the critical registry functions (effectively what the application process was) and 2) the RSPs ability to actually manage the critical registry functions (what Pre-Delegation Testing was). Is the scope of this group limited to point 1 or does it extend to point 2? - Jeff Neuman: At this point, the only recommendation we have agreed upon is #1 in Yasmin's comment, but #1 could include pre-delegation testing. Jeff wouldn't want to go much further, as #2 might create liability for ICANN. - Paul McGrady: Is there a lesson to be learned from academia or health care regarding whether accreditation by a third party results in liability for the third party in the event that the accredited party does not end up being “up to snuff?” Could we dig around in some of these spaces? - Jeff Neuman: The first thing that comes to mind is an auditor. An auditor will certify that you’re able to do what you said you could do, but not that what you can do meets a certain standard. They do this for same reason related to liability. Someone can do this research if they want. - Donna Austin: As the entity responsible for security and stability of the Internet, isn't ICANN going to be liable if a registry fails or compromises SSR in some way? - Jeff Neuman: He does not believe that it is the case with the certification process carefully designed. - Laura Watkins: When we refer to the process of "Accreditation" are we inventing a new process for future rounds? Or was this something that took place as part of pre-delegation testing last time and the discussion is just about moving it to earlier in the process in the future? - Jeff Neuman: The question gets to the heart of the criteria. We talked about this as a way to go through the process once instead of hundreds or thousands of time. It would be great to move the application process and pre-delegation testing process to being at the same point (to be required for approval). But we are not setting the criteria now. We first need to all agree on the policy. - Sara Bockey: How would this program be funded? - Jeff Neuman: He believes it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs. - Donna Austin: This assumes one solution and I'm not sure this is a question we need to get into at this point. Katrin Ohlmer agrees. - Jeff Neuman: If this is a program we agree on, this would be a voluntary program, on a cost recovery basis. We have to define what costs are included in cost recovery and make sure it doesn’t go beyond costs for administering the program itself. - Avri Doria: Cost recovery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations. If we are going to say cost recovery, we have to be careful how we say it and specify what is included. - Vanda: Agrees with Avri on costs. - Katrin Ohlmer 2: The cost should be fixed. - Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fixed costs are ok where they are agreed and predictable. - Jeff Neuman: Asked for clarification from Donna on the list regarding points raised in the chat. He wants to make sure that if they develop a proposal, everyone is behind it. Otherwise, it looks like the group is headed towards preliminary recommendations. Steve Chan (Staff): Echoing Donna's comment, he suggests identifying and document the problem we are trying to solve and then come up with requirements. [Action Item: Go back to notes about this topic in previous conversation including pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summit] Jeff Neuman: We have had conversations about pros/cons/issues in the full group. Kurt also put out a paper on pros/cons. Kurt Pritz: Here are some problems we are trying to solve: (1) the application process was clunky and repetitive w/o any benefit for the extra cost; (2) little in the existing PDT criteria serves stability and resiliency, i.e., capacity in excess of activity or addressing threats; (3) the process for R.O. switching backend providers in unpredictable; 6. Application Support (if time permits) - This topic was not discussed 7. AOB - none From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday 20 September 2016 at 23:38 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue 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, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 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 20 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/rxWsAw Vanda:hi all !!! Vanda:yes Laura Watkins:Hi. I sent apologies but have been able to join after all. Terri Agnew:@Sara, your audio seems fine Terri Agnew:@Laura, thank you, apology has been removed Laura Watkins:Thanks @Terri - sorry Terri Agnew:@Laura, happy it worked out you could join Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll and zoom in the center pod Avri Doria:i think it is a good new approximation for the ST to work from. Vanda:from the sudy we had in this region service providers list would be encouraging for potential applicants here Paul McGrady:HI everyone. Sorry to be late. Emily Barabas:Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Terri Agnew:Please remember to mute when not speaking Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll Emily Barabas:and zoon Emily Barabas:zoom Paul:Wow, this document is beautiful. Thanks so much for all the hard work on this. It gives us a clear path forward for meaningful discussion. Paul:@Jeff, is this beneficial to backend providers too or just applicants? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Jeff Paul:@Jeff, thanks! A rare win/win. Katrin Ohlmer 2:+1 Jeff! That has been a big issue in the prevoious round Phil Buckingham:+1 Katrin Phil Buckingham: Periodic check in the form of an "audit " once a year Avri Doria:up and running with no comlaints/problems. agree that at time 0, all should go through the first testing. Paul:@Jeff, Seems fair. Terri Agnew:@Laura, we are unable to hear you, you are unmuted on the AC. Please check mute on your side Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies for being late. Kurt Pritz:@Jeff: correct. Setting criteria has to be done very carefully and I should not have used the word "guarantee." We are try to improve resiliency but not guarantee it. Laura Watkins:Seems my mic is not working. I wanted to raise that there are some concerns with the term "accredited" as it has other connotations as Jeff has just mentioned. Perhaps there is another more neutral term that could be used? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree again Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:I'm sorry I don't have audio. This is why we wanted to understand the problems we were trying to solve before we started talking about the solution. Donna Austin, Neustar:There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve. Kurt Pritz:I agree that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Developing criteria in other arenas has been a highly contentious process where industry participants try to write criteria that are well-suited to their operation. The criteria writing should be led by a strong independent party. Vanda:agree Kurt Paul:@Kurt - good advice. Vanda:yes. Jeff Neuman:@Donna - If you listen to the beginning of the call, I went through how I believe this is a win-win situation from applicants and beck end providers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff I note the referal to WT4 here, but would aappreciate a short articulation of the 'issues as identified by this WT" perhaps framed as a few simple questions, for us in WT4 to list in our WP and ensure we effectively deal with... Perhaps an AI Sara? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Avre - ICANN identified that the ability to test for multiple registry operators was a fail in the first round and something that should be remedied. For those RSPs that have been operating ROs from the first round they have been doing so in accordance with the requirements of the RA after going through PDT. There may be ways to adjust PDT to test for x number of registry operations and domains under management. Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Apologies for joining this group late, has this group made a distinction between 1) a RSP demonstrating its ability to manage the critical registry functions (effectively what the application process was) and 2) the RSPs ability to actually manage the critical registry functions (what Pre-Delegation Testing was). Is the scope of this group limited to point 1 or does it extend to point 2? Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry Avri Laura Watkins:When we refer to the process of "Accreditation" are we inventing a new process for future rounds? Or was this something that took place as part of pre-delegation testing last time and the discussion is just about moving it to earlier in the process in the future? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WP means Work Plan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):No Not yet to work on BUT to ensure we do address the secifics of anaything from this WT to WT4 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):just don't want thngs to slip through the cracks NOR have this group do more thna needed Paul:AI = Action Item WP= Work Plan CLO = Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport :) Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:As the entity responsible for security and stability of the Internet, isn't ICANN going to be liable if a registry fails or compromises SSR in some way? Paul:Thanks Jeff. Jeff Neuman:@Donna - I dont believe that with a certification process carefully designed, no Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara, I'll review the earlier part of the call. Paul:All, I have to switch to phone only. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - we will miss you witty written banter Jeff Neuman:I believe it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs Donna Austin, Neustar:Sara, this assumes one solution and I'm not sure this is a question we need to get into at this point. Katrin Ohlmer 2:@ Jeff: I agree Avri Doria:cost recorvery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations Katrin Ohlmer 2:@Avri: The cost should be fixed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):FIXED COSTS IS OK where they are agreed and redictable Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Predictable Phil Buckingham:Yes -out of the auction proceeds or Fixed price contract with an independant third party Vanda:nice music around... Donna Austin, Neustar:You rapping away there Jeff Avri Doria:i did for a few seconds Terri Agnew:it ended so quickly I was unable to find which line it was coming from Cecilia Smith:It was DEFINITELY Jeff's music... Vanda:agree with Avri about costs.. Donna Austin, Neustar:I will, noting that I am currently on vacation so it will not be timely, but it's not the first time I've requested that we start with identifying the problems before jumping to solutions. Emily Barabas:Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Jeff Neuman:No problem Donna. Just want to make sure your thoughts and comments are brought out Avri Doria:yes, everybody, lets not wait for the next call to do mmore work on this. Avri Doria:thank you good call Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna - identify the problem(s) first Emily Barabas:Next meeting: Tuesday 4 October at 3:00 UTC Kurt Pritz:Here are some problems we are trying to solve: (1) the application process was clunky and repetitive w/o any benefit for the extra cost; (2) little in the existing PDT criteria serves stability and resiliency, i.e., capacity in excess of activity or addressing threats; (3) the process for R.O. switching backend providers in unpredictable; Kurt Pritz:(4) Avri's point that the capacity for providing back end services is not tested Avri Doria:i think there may be enough in the previous docs for synthesis of the questions asked. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Sara and everyone... good call ... talk again soon... bye for now Avri Doria:yes safe to end. thanks Jeff Neuman:The other item I would like to get are the pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summitt Katrin Ohlmer 2:thank you everyone Laura Watkins:Thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Kurt Pritz:good job Sara Vanda:buy all Jeff Neuman:Can we please track those down. I know we did those on flip charts at the GDD Summit Steve Chan:@Jeff, yes, i can get those from GDD staff Steve Chan:or, i will try that is

1 0

[gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] - Notes from RSP Certification/Accreditation brainstorming session at GDD Summit
by Steve Chan Sept. 21, 2016

Sept. 21, 2016

Dear WT1 Members, Even for those that participated in today’s call, you may not have seen the request from Jeff Neuman in the chat to track down the notes from a brainstorming session on a potential RSP Certification/Accreditation program that took place at the GDD Summit in Amsterdam. Please find those notes attached to this email or available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/KT2AAw In addition, I’m pleased to inform you that Francisco Arias, who is part of the Global Domains Division, will be participating in this work track and lending his technical and operational expertise to the WT’s deliberations, particularly on this subject. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Sr. Policy Manager   ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886  mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 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, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 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 20 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/rxWsAw Vanda:hi all !!! Vanda:yes Laura Watkins:Hi. I sent apologies but have been able to join after all. Terri Agnew:@Sara, your audio seems fine Terri Agnew:@Laura, thank you, apology has been removed Laura Watkins:Thanks @Terri - sorry Terri Agnew:@Laura, happy it worked out you could join Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll and zoom in the center pod Avri Doria:i think it is a good new approximation for the ST to work from. Vanda:from the sudy we had in this region service providers list would be encouraging for potential applicants here Paul McGrady:HI everyone. Sorry to be late. Emily Barabas:Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Terri Agnew:Please remember to mute when not speaking Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll Emily Barabas:and zoon Emily Barabas:zoom Paul:Wow, this document is beautiful. Thanks so much for all the hard work on this. It gives us a clear path forward for meaningful discussion. Paul:@Jeff, is this beneficial to backend providers too or just applicants? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Jeff Paul:@Jeff, thanks! A rare win/win. Katrin Ohlmer 2:+1 Jeff! That has been a big issue in the prevoious round Phil Buckingham:+1 Katrin Phil Buckingham: Periodic check in the form of an "audit " once a year Avri Doria:up and running with no comlaints/problems. agree that at time 0, all should go through the first testing. Paul:@Jeff, Seems fair. Terri Agnew:@Laura, we are unable to hear you, you are unmuted on the AC. Please check mute on your side Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies for being late. Kurt Pritz:@Jeff: correct. Setting criteria has to be done very carefully and I should not have used the word "guarantee." We are try to improve resiliency but not guarantee it. Laura Watkins:Seems my mic is not working. I wanted to raise that there are some concerns with the term "accredited" as it has other connotations as Jeff has just mentioned. Perhaps there is another more neutral term that could be used? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree again Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:I'm sorry I don't have audio. This is why we wanted to understand the problems we were trying to solve before we started talking about the solution. Donna Austin, Neustar:There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve. Kurt Pritz:I agree that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Developing criteria in other arenas has been a highly contentious process where industry participants try to write criteria that are well-suited to their operation. The criteria writing should be led by a strong independent party. Vanda:agree Kurt Paul:@Kurt - good advice. Vanda:yes. Jeff Neuman:@Donna - If you listen to the beginning of the call, I went through how I believe this is a win-win situation from applicants and beck end providers Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff I note the referal to WT4 here, but would aappreciate a short articulation of the 'issues as identified by this WT" perhaps framed as a few simple questions, for us in WT4 to list in our WP and ensure we effectively deal with... Perhaps an AI Sara? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Avre - ICANN identified that the ability to test for multiple registry operators was a fail in the first round and something that should be remedied. For those RSPs that have been operating ROs from the first round they have been doing so in accordance with the requirements of the RA after going through PDT. There may be ways to adjust PDT to test for x number of registry operations and domains under management. Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Apologies for joining this group late, has this group made a distinction between 1) a RSP demonstrating its ability to manage the critical registry functions (effectively what the application process was) and 2) the RSPs ability to actually manage the critical registry functions (what Pre-Delegation Testing was). Is the scope of this group limited to point 1 or does it extend to point 2? Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry Avri Laura Watkins:When we refer to the process of "Accreditation" are we inventing a new process for future rounds? Or was this something that took place as part of pre-delegation testing last time and the discussion is just about moving it to earlier in the process in the future? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WP means Work Plan Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):No Not yet to work on BUT to ensure we do address the secifics of anaything from this WT to WT4 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):just don't want thngs to slip through the cracks NOR have this group do more thna needed Paul:AI = Action Item WP= Work Plan CLO = Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport :) Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Jeff Donna Austin, Neustar:As the entity responsible for security and stability of the Internet, isn't ICANN going to be liable if a registry fails or compromises SSR in some way? Paul:Thanks Jeff. Jeff Neuman:@Donna - I dont believe that with a certification process carefully designed, no Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara, I'll review the earlier part of the call. Paul:All, I have to switch to phone only. Jeff Neuman:@Paul - we will miss you witty written banter Jeff Neuman:I believe it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs Donna Austin, Neustar:Sara, this assumes one solution and I'm not sure this is a question we need to get into at this point. Katrin Ohlmer 2:@ Jeff: I agree Avri Doria:cost recorvery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations Katrin Ohlmer 2:@Avri: The cost should be fixed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):FIXED COSTS IS OK where they are agreed and redictable Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Predictable Phil Buckingham:Yes -out of the auction proceeds or Fixed price contract with an independant third party Vanda:nice music around... Donna Austin, Neustar:You rapping away there Jeff Avri Doria:i did for a few seconds Terri Agnew:it ended so quickly I was unable to find which line it was coming from Cecilia Smith:It was DEFINITELY Jeff's music... Vanda:agree with Avri about costs.. Donna Austin, Neustar:I will, noting that I am currently on vacation so it will not be timely, but it's not the first time I've requested that we start with identifying the problems before jumping to solutions. Emily Barabas:Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKve… Jeff Neuman:No problem Donna. Just want to make sure your thoughts and comments are brought out Avri Doria:yes, everybody, lets not wait for the next call to do mmore work on this. Avri Doria:thank you good call Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna - identify the problem(s) first Emily Barabas:Next meeting: Tuesday 4 October at 3:00 UTC Kurt Pritz:Here are some problems we are trying to solve: (1) the application process was clunky and repetitive w/o any benefit for the extra cost; (2) little in the existing PDT criteria serves stability and resiliency, i.e., capacity in excess of activity or addressing threats; (3) the process for R.O. switching backend providers in unpredictable; Kurt Pritz:(4) Avri's point that the capacity for providing back end services is not tested Avri Doria:i think there may be enough in the previous docs for synthesis of the questions asked. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Sara and everyone... good call ... talk again soon... bye for now Avri Doria:yes safe to end. thanks Jeff Neuman:The other item I would like to get are the pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summitt Katrin Ohlmer 2:thank you everyone Laura Watkins:Thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Kurt Pritz:good job Sara Vanda:buy all Jeff Neuman:Can we please track those down. I know we did those on flip charts at the GDD Summit Steve Chan:@Jeff, yes, i can get those from GDD staff Steve Chan:or, i will try that is

1 0

New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - Third Meeting - Proposed Agenda
by Sara Bockey Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

Dear All, The 3rd meeting for Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach - will take place on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. 13:00 PDT, 16:00 EDT, 21:00 London, 22:00 CEST For other times: http://tinyurl.com/gs9ehqt Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/newgtldsubteams/ The proposed agenda is as follows 1. Welcome 2. SOIs 3. Work Plan Schedule/Subject Area Prioritization (continued) 4. Accreditation Discussion (continued) 5. Application Support (if time permits) 6. AOB Best regards, Sara Bockey

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting 06 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Dear Sub Team members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 06 September. 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. In addition, please see the excerpted table from the Final Issue Report that was referenced during the meeting that shows topics where policy development may apply. This also is posted to the wiki on the Background Documents and Information page at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001980 along with the link to the Final Issue Report. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 06 September 1. Subject Area Work Plan: Discussion Notes: · Question: What do we mean by "Applicant Guidebook"? Answer -- Jeff Neuman: There are a couple of questions associated with this. They are listed in the Final Issues Report. Also on the Work Track 1 Sub Team topic page at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732. · Prioritization: Policy vs. implementation. AGB would probably fall into implementation. Need to think about prioritization before deciding on the work plan. However, if there is no preference there is no reason to change the order. It was already decided to start with accreditation. · Question: Donna Austin -- Need to prioritize what is policy? Answer: Jeff Neuman -- Prioritize in terms of subjects. · Vanda Scartezini -- prioritize communication. · All topics may have policy and implementation aspects. Prioritize on policy versus implementation -- look at Final Issue Report. · Also look at clustering related topics., such as AGB. · Accreditation is a priority; clarity of the application process; leave systems and queuing for after other topics. 2. Prioritization of Work: Action Items: Christa and Sara will do a first pass on a draft of the prioritization. Discussion Notes: · Number 1 (to run concurrently): Accreditation -- think about pros and cons for RSPs. To what extent can we use the 2012 process? Also, support for applicants from developing countries (but applicant support may be ongoing because of dependencies with other topics) · Number 2: AGB. · Outreach to the community: Need to decide the questions first. Good to do in the near future. 3. Work Methods: Discussion Notes: Consider whether to use Google docs and or other tools.

1 0

recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 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, 06 September 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 06 September 2016 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 06 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/rRWsAw Christa Taylor:one moment Jeff Neuman:hello all Michael Flemming:Hello Paul McGrady:Good morning/afternoon/evening. vanda:hi everyone. Emily Barabas:Yes, everyone should be able to scroll Emily Barabas:Click the minus sign at the bottom of the window to zoom out, if needed Emily Barabas:A list of topics covered by this sub team: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732 vanda:one of the main problems in our survey here is communication so I would liek to have some focus on that as one of the most relevant issue to succeed vanda:i am in a noise environment, but will participate writing in this chat Paul McGrady:@Jeff. Thanks for the clarity. Rubens Kuhl:Actually I'm in Adobe Connect, not Audio Only... Avri Doria:had audio problems and had to reboot. back now. Terri Agnew:@Rubens, I will update that in a moment Rubens Kuhl:@Terri, no rush. vanda:@rubens. yes, I can talk but with kids in a noise environment - will disturb the call Steve Coates:Apologies, my computer shut down. I'm back. Donna Austin, Neustar:Are we prioritising to decide what is policy? Phil Buckingham:I agree Rubenss - topics that will require a PDP/new policy will take longer , so I agree - to prioritise .identify topics on that basis . Jeff Neuman:Donna - prioritizing in terms of subjects Michael Flemming:I believe we are prioritizing the order as well as the time in which we will be looking at each individual topic. Once we reach each topic we will begin discussing about implementation or policy, perhaps. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):It's 0115 and the house is asleep I prefer to type if needs be Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I agree Michael Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Smaller groups of couerse means MOR meetings I assume ad you will still need to come back to the WT as a whole periodocaalaly and then to the ful WG Laura Watkins (Nominet):My mic didn't seem to be working. I have a process question - I'm not clear how the process will work in terms of going through the work items. For example - the first item on the list is "Accreditation programs" - how in depth will these discussions be? Will the group work on this to propose a solution or will the discussions simply identify if a PDP process is needed in that area? Terri Agnew:@Laura, I have sent you a private AC chat to help Donna Austin, Neustar:@Cheryl--fair points. Rubens Kuhl:Steve has his hand raised. Jeff Neuman:welcome back Steve Paul McGrady:@Steve Chan - couldn't we just color code them on our chart for clarity? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Great to have you back Steve vanda:accresditation services is another relevant point raised in our survey about gtlds here in LAC region. Steve Chan:I believe there is a chart in the final issue report as well, with check marks (as opposed to color coding Paul), to have a quick reference guide Steve Chan:However, this is my first day back, so my memory might be challenged :) Rubens Kuhl:Steve, is there an XLSX/OpenCalc/GoogleSheet version of it ? Donna Austin, Neustar:What do we mean by 'variable fees'? Is that the ongoing fee the registry operator pays? Paul McGrady:@Steve, welcome back. ICANNland missed you. Samantha Demetriou:One way to do this might be to set up a Google doc that lists the final report recommendations and the existing questions. That way people can add additional questions/items to be addressed and indicate if they are policy or implementation.From there we can prioritize the topics that have the most policy items that need to be decided. Julie Hedlund:All -- I will find the table and send it around. Sara Bockey:Here is the question posed for Variable fees Sara Bockey:Variable Fees: Should the New gTLD application fee be variable based on such factors as application type (e.g., open or closed registries), multiple identical applications, or other factor? Avri Doria:would be good, perhaps, to also be able to display that table. Phil Buckingham:CLO - Google docs - a good idea Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara Samantha Demetriou:Systems to me seem to be somewhat unique and almost entirely implementation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Well Phil, that can allow for more asymetric inut as well... As long as we also use the mailing lit to remind the wifer WT to make inout and nte any major ugrades of the Docs (or similar to Docs Wiki for example) Rubens Kuhl:The idea is to prioritize based on whether it looks like policy, not a final determination on whether it is or it is not. Avri Doria:In fact one of the outcomes of the policy & Implementation work, it was discovered that each issues has both elements in it, just the proportionality differes at different times in the project. At this point when we are reviewing the difference matters less. Rubens Kuhl:Prioritization only specifies order, not inclusion or exclusion. Avri Doria:we are already moving 4 tracks in parrlalel, more tracks becomes a complexity mightmare. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Tht is my concern Avri jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):There are lots of dependencies between the tracks - at least seen from the exterior of somebody unable to follow everything... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Can we have scroll control? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):THx Avri Doria:but having individuals take reposnsiblity for doing a first take and brining it back to the subteam can be useful Julie Hedlund:@CLO: It is unsynced. Phil Buckingham:Surely we have to identify policy issues first because they are going to take much longer , than an implementation , operational issues . We need to put in place a critical path / project manage this . Laura Watkins (Nominet):+1 jorge Kurt Pritz:Each item in the list has a policy and implementation aspect. We should decide the policy for a particular item first, then move on to any implementation advice we have. E.g., for accreditation, is our policy to have an accreditation program to: make the application process as cheap and fast as possible, ensure DNS stability and resiliency, encourage diversity, etc. When we decide that, we move on to implementation advice. \ Phil Buckingham:+ Kurt Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, the policy item here is whether technical competence needs to be shown beforehand or not... Rubens Kuhl:.... beforehand is what is written in policy now, but accreditation/certification could allow for selecting a technical provider after. Jeff Neuman:@rubens, that may be part of it, but I think the policy is also about increasing choice, competition, cheaper application fees, etc Jeff Neuman:you can select before or after, but pick from a list of those that are "pre-approved" Steve Coates:That sounds way too pragmatic. Let's make it more difficult. Steve Coates:Just kidding. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:You sure Steve ;-) jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):What will be looking at when talking about the AGB? Its contents or its format? Rubens Kuhl:@Jeff, you are right. Some people have read "increasing choice and competition" as a ban of accreditation programs, so we need this cleared out, indeed. Rubens Kuhl:We could call it "Clusters". Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:A "Work Prder" perhaps Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: Work Order Paul McGrady:How about "Issue Pace"? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:agreed Jeff jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):On applicant support it would probably be good to liaise specifically with the GAC WG on underserved regions vanda:i have it cheryl Kurt Pritz:Applicant Support will be somewhat dependent on what the application fees and variable fees are Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Starting and run in parallel yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:as HJeff said 'ending is another matter all together' Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jorge, it would be helpful to encourage member of the GAC WG to participate in the topic discussion jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):And the applicant fees may be dependent on whether we have categories... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2:Exactly Avri we can always take 'another run at things' esoecially where there are interdependencies jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Donna: "we" are trying - but a specific outreach (e.g. with questions ) could help to get their input Michael Flemming:Just one moment Kurt Pritz:We could start with policy reasons for having such a program. An accreditaion program for RSPs should be implemented because: (1) it will improve application processing efficiency; (2) it will improve DNS security, stability, resiliency; (3) it could improve diversity. Which one or more of these? jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Sounds good Kurt. How does it improve diversity? (just to better understand) Kurt Pritz:@ Michael: I think the members of this group ARE the community. Any community member who wanted to participate is welcome. I don't understand the need for the additional attempt at consutation to those that were already invited. vanda:@kurt + 1 Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH:@kurt: +1 Avri Doria:well we need schedules to give us timelines as goals to work toward. Michael Flemming:@Kurt, I would agree that constituincy comment requires rather a lot of work and should only be done as necessary. I agree with Avri in regards to needing to know what our questions are before drafting them, that is why I had doubts in regards to the drafted schedule. I think we only need to ask questions as necessary. Michael Flemming:@Avri, I understand and they are very much appreciated. Without those schedules, I wouldn't be able to ask such questions. Avri Doria:Michael, but constituency comments are a required part of the process before developing recommendations. Michael Flemming:Of course Avri Doria:i mean community comments Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Excellent point Donna vanda:I am finishing the survey here and will have more clear information about accreditation, but already can say services accredited list of services is considered very important for future application vanda:sorry will need to leave.. conflict calls. Avri Doria:true Donna, is it enough to say on an application - will use a certified provider. Terri Agnew:Next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Terri Jeff Neuman:great job Sara and Christa Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Has invte(s) been seny yet for the following calls? Michael Flemming:Yes, amazing job! Michael Flemming:Phil and I will deliver on Thursday. Avri Doria:and thanks to Sara and Christa for being the first of the subgroups to take the track further. Rubens Kuhl:Tks Sara, Christa, staff! Terri Agnew:@Cheryl, next call for this group will be sent shortly Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara and Christa Ashley Roberts:Thanks Sara ad Christa. Alexander Schubert:Bye everyone! Cecilia Smith:Thank you both! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Great start everyone Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH:thanks jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks and bye Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Talk agan soon Phil Buckingham:Well done Christa and Sara for kicking this off . Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Bye for now

1 0

[gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Second Meeting Proposed Agenda
by Sara Bockey Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Dear All, The 2nd meeting for Work Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach - will take place on Tuesday, 06 September 2016 at 15:00 UTC. This will be the first meeting that Christa Taylor and I will be co-chairing and we apologize for the delay in circulating our proposed agenda. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome/Review Agenda 2. SOIs 3. Work Plan Schedule/Subject Area Prioritization 4. Work Methods 5. Accreditation Discussion 6. AOB Best regards, Sara Bockey

2 1

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