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

Work Track 1 Agenda for 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Oct. 17, 2017

Oct. 17, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Discussion on Variable and Fixed Costs & Clarity of Application Process 4. AOB Best regards, Sara sara bockey sr. 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.

4 4

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Oct. 3, 2017

Oct. 3, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 03 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p62pieo9lj8/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=0555d3b4d0c723a6 443ff49bfca3e762f690bbacbaefaf5bc7f0e0b28a3e10d0> https://participate.icann.org/p62pieo9lj8/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/e4JEB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 03 October 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 03 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_e 4JEB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ e4JEB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LNfaoHk8Lv0hzH4Ds7UBJZ2UUkT__0XlZRoIXQEo11s &s=3WwAIGAmEcES5uDlc77xgbgPT1Rv_4yx-r7QgiGhJAY&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=LNfaoHk8Lv0hzH4Ds7UBJZ2UUkT__0XlZRoIXQEo11s&s=3W wAIGAmEcES5uDlc77xgbgPT1Rv_4yx-r7QgiGhJAY&e= Donna Austin, Neustar:What was 1.1.3? Christa Taylor:The Afilis comment Steve Chan:@Donna, slides available now. Steve Chan:And they are unsynced Rubens Kuhl:We need to start the recording first. Donna Austin, Neustar:so is our takeaway that no agreement is required between an RSP and ICANN? Ashley Roberts:Donna, I would agree with that. Ashley Roberts:Presumably the ALAC comment should refer to the RA rather than the RAA. Rubens Kuhl:Initial testing during the 2012 round also did not test nexus information or post-registration activation. Richard Merdinger:audio issues Richard Merdinger:I will type it here Richard Merdinger:I am satisfied with limiting the scope as Jeff recommended Terri Agnew:@Richard, please let me know if a dial out on the telephone would work. I will send you a private chat Richard Merdinger:My concerns are tmainly with the movement of domains between RSPs when TLD requirements differ Richard Merdinger:so if there does come a time that TLD moves to a new RSP that all testing as prescribed is done Richard Merdinger:thank you Richard Merdinger:Thank you JEff Donna Austin, Neustar:yep Richard Merdinger:One more comment...I hope further that the RrSG engages with the RySG to make thsi efficient as possible Donna Austin, Neustar:Rich, there is a WG that registrars can join. i'll send you the details. Richard Merdinger:Thank you, Donna Kurt Pritz:Important to the idea of a cutoff date is the requirement of a clear RSP application processing timeline that is always met Rubens Kuhl:If the new is a subset of the old, they can be different and still covered by the previous testing. jeff neuman:accident Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, I think the answer to your question depends on the requirements for the RSPs under the approval program. I believe that Francisco previously provided some comments to WT4 regarding additional criteria for RSPs to enhance SSR. jeff neuman:I am not sure that I understand the Afilias comment jeff neuman:From a legal standpoint i am not sure it matters whether there are new requirements or not, but I would love to hear from ICANN legal Rubens Kuhl:The E in EPP stands for Extensible, so it will have different extensions... jeff neuman:This comment needs to get referred to WT 4 jeff neuman:I told you we would get through this :) Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Rubens Kuhl:Bye all! Sara Bockey:thanks all Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 1 Meeting 03 October
by Julie Hedlund Oct. 3, 2017

Oct. 3, 2017

Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting on 03 October. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Slides are attached and excerpts from the chat room are included for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes, Work Track 1, 03 October Actions: ACTION: See if anyone on ICANN legal staff would see anti-competition concerns if RSP incumbents didn't have to go through testing. Notes: Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions on RSP Program (continuation from Sept 19th call): The CC2 responses are available online at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… 1.1.3 - Who should be responsible for evaluating whether an RSP meets the requirements of the program? (Slide 16) -- Comment by Afilias: Satisfied with the current program, nothing to suggest the evaluation process needs to change. -- Note that an RSP doesn't have a contract with ICANN, so this statement can't be achieved, "Compliance team should also be involved to confirm that all existing RSPs are meeting existing contractual compliance." 1.1.4 - Should there be an continuing obligations for approved RSPs, such as high-level requirements for accreditation? Should the requirements be variable based on the types of TLDs the RSP intends to serve or other factors? (Slides 17 and 18) -- Support and opposition for different requirements for specific TLD types from Nominet and the RySG. -- Additional input on Program requirements from Nominet, BC, BRG, and Valideus. -- Suggestion for improving efficiencies in place of accreditation program from Afilias. 1.1.5 - Should there be an Agreement between an RSP and ICANN? If so, what enforcement mechanisms should be made available to ICANN in the event that such an Agreement is breached? (Slides 19, 20, and 21) -- Opposition to an Agreement between ICANN and RSPs from CIRA, Jim Prendergast, ALAC, RYSG, Afilias, and Valideus. -- Support for an Agreement between ICANN and RSPs from Nominet and BC. -- Support for a limited Agreement from BRG. Discussion: -- See if we can tie some of these together to see if we have agreement. If you look at comments in support of an agreement between ICANN and RSPs, those seem to relate to an accreditation program. Not sure those would be the same if we are talking about a pre-approval program, rather than an accreditation or pre-certification program. Not sure if there is support for an agreement for a pre-approval program. -- One point that could be considered is if the program were in a steady state of first-come, first-served how would that play into pre-approval readiness? >From the chat: Donna Austin, Neustar: so is our takeaway that no agreement is required between an RSP and ICANN? Ashley Roberts: Donna, I would agree with that. Ashley Roberts: Presumably the ALAC comment should refer to the RA rather than the RAA. 1.1.6 - What, if any, are the potential impacts (both positive and negative) of an RSP Program on ICANN Accrediated Registrars? If there are any negative impacts, what are ways in which those impacts can be mitigated? (Slide 22) -- Nominet, BRG, RySG, and Valideus all stated that if implemented correctly, there should be no impact on ICANN Accredited Registrars. -- Afilias noted no negative impacts and pointed to a potential positive impact. -- Registrar concerns raised during the RySG RSP Discussion in Johannesburg and still need to be addressed. Discussion: -- Re: the Registrar concerns -- Once you are certified you are in a pool of certified registries is a different type of program than we are talking about. We are talking about a pre-approval program (not a certification). In terms of this comment perhaps we can go back to the Registrars and ask that if we do a pre-approval does that address their concerns. -- The transfer to a new RSP is outside of our scope, we would hope that the registries are working on that process. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Initial testing during the 2012 round also did not test nexus information or post-registration activation. Richard Merdinger: I am satisfied with limiting the scope as Jeff recommended Richard Merdinger: My concerns are tmainly with the movement of domains between RSPs when TLD requirements differ Richard Merdinger: so if there does come a time that TLD moves to a new RSP that all testing as prescribed is done Richard Merdinger: One more comment...I hope further that the RrSG engages with the RySG to make thsi efficient as possible Donna Austin, Neustar: Rich, there is a WG that registrars can join. i'll send you the details. 1.1.7 - Should there be a process to reassess RSPs on a periodic basis? If so, how often should an assessment be conducted and what would the process be for re-approval? (slides 23 and 24) -- Support for regular audits from Nominet, BC, BRG, Afilias, and NCSG. -- Regular audits are not necessary -- Valideus and CIRA. 1.1.8 - If there is an RSP Program, how far in advance should such a program be launched prior to the opening of the next application window? (Slides 25 and 26) -- As soon as practical: CIRA, BRG, RySG, Valideus. -- Within 3-12 months: Nominet, BC, John Poole. -- When the AGB is complete: Afilias. 1.1.9 - Should there be an RSP application "cut-off" date to allow sufficient time for an RSP seeking approval in order for their application to be approved before the opening of an application window? (Slides 27-29) -- Support for a "cut-off date": BC. -- Support for no "cut-off date": RySG, CIRA, and BRG. -- Suggestions for timeframes: Valideu, BRG, CIRA. -- Program should be optional: Nominet. -- Proposal for process improvements without accreditation: Afilias. >From the chat: Kurt Pritz: Important to the idea of a cutoff date is the requirement of a clear RSP application processing timeline that is always met 1.1.10 - If there is a list of pre-approved RSPs in any RSP Program, should there be a provision granted to organizations that act as an RSP to an existing delegated TLD? If yes, how would such a provision work? If not, could ICANN use an RSP's existing performance to satisfy any of the technical requirements and/or tests used in the approval process? (Slides 30-32) -- Established providers should be considered to meet the minimum qualifications of an RSP Program: RySG, Nominet, and CIRA. -- Follow the same Program requirements: BC and Google. -- Leverage information about the past performance of RSPs: BRG and Afilias. -- John Poole stated that it is up to "ICANN Technical" to decide. Discussion: -- If there are different requirements for the next round and ongoing, not sure how we can say that none of the existing providers would have to go through some form of the pre-approval process. ACTION: See if anyone on ICANN legal staff would see anti-competition concerns if RSP incumbents didn't have to go through testing. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: If the new is a subset of the old, they can be different and still covered by the previous testing. Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, I think the answer to your question depends on the requirements for the RSPs under the approval program. I believe that Francisco previously provided some comments to WT4 regarding additional criteria for RSPs to enhance SSR. jeff neuman: I am not sure that I understand the Afilias comment jeff neuman: From a legal standpoint i am not sure it matters whether there are new requirements or not, but I would love to hear from ICANN legal 1.1.11 - If an RSP program is established, how should it be funded? For instance, should registries pay into the program, which will reduce related ICANN evaluation fees (and associated application fees)? (Slides 33-35) -- Charge RSPs participating in the program: CIRA, BC, BRG, John Poole, RySG, and Valideus. -- Charge new RSPs a fee; no/minimal fee for proven RSPs: Nominet. General Comments (Slide 36) -- Require RSPs to meet Standards in Extensible Provisioning (EPP) extensions, file formats, billing transactions, and Domain Transaction Type Name: RrSG. -- Reduced fees over time: Afilias. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: The E in EPP stands for Extensible, so it will have different extensions... jeff neuman: This comment needs to get referred to WT 4

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for October 3, 2017 @ 15:00 UTC
by Christa Taylor Oct. 2, 2017

Oct. 2, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 3 October 2017 at 15:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * RSP Program (continuation from Sept 19th call) 4. AOB The CC2 responses are available online at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS… Cheers, Christa Christa Taylor, B. Tech, CPA, CMA, MBA Skype: christat13 <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa(a)dottba.com <http://www.dottba.com/> www.dottba.com

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Work Track 1 Meeting 19 September
by Julie Hedlund Sept. 21, 2017

Sept. 21, 2017

Dear Work Track Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes from the meeting on 19 September. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant to be a substitute for the recording. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items and Notes, Work Track 1, 19 September RSP Accreditation Program (Slide 3) Benefits and risks (Slide 4) -- Is there any evidence of an issue about lack of competition? Is that a mandate for this group? -- BRG Supports the concept of an RSP program [see comments]. (Slide 5) -- Point: Terminology re: accreditation program. We are talking about a pre-approval process, not an accreditation program. -- The data that ICANN has come out with wasn’t available when we did the initial draft. The Registry RSP discussion group recently got additional information from Francisco and we are working through that to understand where the problems were, and a way to use the monitoring to resolve those problems. There is data now. Benefits and challenges (slide 7 & 8) -- Nominet: Support for a lighter touch regulatory regime for established providers, support for any RSP programs would be conditional on the outcomes (slide 9) -- Afilias, RySG, and Valideus provided comments on scalability (slide 13) -- CIRA and Demys: feedback on additional program elements (slide 14) -- BRG and ALAC: feedback on additional program elements (slide 15); Given ICANN's mandate on security and stability, it is most effective to set a minimum threshold for requirements up front. This seems consistent with BRG's comment to avoid barriers to entry in the marketplace. - 1.1.3 (slide 16) -- Nominet: Does not see any other option than ICANN being responsible -- Afilias, RySG, Valideus: Support for continuing to the use the model from the 2012 round -- BRG: Support for using the same provide for testing associated with the RSP Program and application evaluation. Concern about statement by Afilias regarding involvement of Compliance team to confirm that all existing RSPs are meeting existing contractual requirements. This will be picked up on the next call. >From the chat: Sarah L Verisign: Preapproval of an RSP without making commensurate changes to the test cases used during PDT might not improve performance at all if you take ICANNs data into account detailing the number of EBERO triggering incidents that are occurring. Jeff Neuman: For clarity - and I did not have a role in drafting the comments for Valideus - but those were not challenges, but rather statements addressing the challenges raised by others. Jim Prendergast, Afilias, Jannik Skou: Opposition to establishing an accreditation or preapproval Program at this time, recommendations for alternative mechanism to create process efficiencies (slide 10-11) Justine Chew: Could someone remind me of the difference between "accreditation" and "certification" plse? Donna Austin, Neustar: Justine, i don't think there is one. Justine Chew: @Donna, really?! Donna Austin, Neustar: Justine, in this discussion we have generally used them interchangeably. So I'm sure there is a difference, but in this context i don't believe there is. Rubens Kuhl: Justine, this is an area where there is the market reading of the terms and the ICANN reading of it. Usually, certification goes into deeper assessment and checking of a capability, while accreditation is lighter. But due to registrar relations that are called accreditation in ICANN world, people usually equate accreditaiton with a contract framework. Jeff Neuman: In the ICANN context, "Accreditation" generally means that based on your application, you are approved to perform certain services in the future.... Jonathan Robinson: There was an earlier comment that an approval process could test the ability to scale. There is no evidence provided for the fact that this could be done effectively. Such a process goes beyond setting a minimum standard and (potentially) confers authority to the tester (ICANN) for performance testing beyond minimum standards Jeff Neuman: "Certification" is a process that evaluates performance and certifies that you have met the performance standards (based on past behavior) Jeff Neuman: So, Accreditation looks towards the future, Certification looks to the past Jeff Neuman: But....that said....I am not sure that the comments here make that distinction and Donna is right that they use the terms interchangeably Justine Chew: Noted. Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Donna. Jonathan Robinson: @Jeff. Agreed that one could argue for a disctinction but they do seem to have been used interchangablly here - ALAC: Doubt expressed regarding value of ongoing expansion on gTLDs, issue is of relatively little importance to Internet users (slide 11) - Question 1.1.2 - CIRA, Nominet, BC, Google, BRG: Feedback on the issue of scalability (slide 12) - Support expressed for setting a minimum standard/threshold so applicants can be confident in their application passing through. That is different from evaluating live operating TLDs for performance. - At the time that an RSP is seeking pre-approval, they are going to need to identify system and capacity. Any RSP is going to provide a pretty good picture at that that time. Important to seperate that from the compliance function that takes place during operation. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: Scalability problems could be number of TLDs, number of DUMs or number of peak transactions. Usually the later is the one that hits more frequently. Jeff Neuman: They also need to provide supporting documentation to show evidence of their scalability. Jeff Neuman: So, it would not just be affirmatively making that assertion, but demonstrating their ability Rubens Kuhl: There is one small technical function that is linked to number of TLDs in DNSSEC, but it's unusual to hit such a problem. - The entire purpose is to set a minimum threshold. Too many barriers up front create hurdles that are difficult to prove up front and establish inappropriate barriers to entry. >From the chat: Rubens Kuhl: The more features of a registry system ICANN evaluates, the more liability it creates if such infrastructure doesn't deliver on that promise. Donna Austin, Neustar: Agree with Jonathan, the pre-approval process is intended to establish that the potential RSP has the technical wherewithal to run a registry. Rubens Kuhl: And since new gTLDs are not getting the gigantic registration volumes once foreseen, scability concerns seem overzealous at this point. Donna Austin, Neustar: Good point Rubens, and also highlight the difficulties associated with predicting registration volumes.

2 1

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Terri Agnew Sept. 19, 2017

Sept. 19, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p7jvnfqk9ya/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=4c3b942c19b662a3…> https://participate.icann.org/p7jvnfqk9ya/ 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 ** 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> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/8hkhB> https://community.icann.org/x/8hkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 September 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=6Z04n4A45NXawKHktu70Vv_OCWBrMjpF3hMxR8A5pYk&s=D8QkddagJbXemgRHm0gh6-NY6RInnqtXuqrAPB-5g9k&e= Jeff Neuman:hello all Jeff Neuman:Looks like Alan and Justine are the only ones I can tell not in the contracted parties :) Jeff Neuman:I had hoped for more people given the tpic Jeff Neuman:topic Michael Flemming:Sorry, additional time means we will go over? Sara Bockey:Michael, possibly Michael Flemming:Undeerstood, thanks! Michael Flemming:Sarah, you are kind of soft Christa Taylor:No, we won't go over time Christa Taylor:We have a continuation as required on the schedule Michael Flemming:I see. Jonathan Robinson:Good to not go over time. Need to schedule additional meetings if required. Christa Taylor:Currently on slide 3 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ok you have my right brain Justine Chew:@CLO: good one! *I still haven't figured out which side of my brain is where. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):three meetings at once sigh Michael Flemming:You only have two ears, how does that work? I've done the two, but usually rely on auto streamed transcripts for the third. Jonathan Robinson:@Sara. Sorry for referring to you as Christa. I have recently got up at 3:30 am! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ambient audio and that screen must be centre with ear and screen sides switched from the usual cross over Donna Austin, Neustar:who are these comments from? Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Sara Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Donna Jeff Neuman:I agree with Donna....we should forever change the term to pre-approval Jeff Neuman:@Sara - no need to apologize. That is the term that was used in the charter Donna Austin, Neustar:no apology necessary Sara, we're reviewing comments that referred to RSP Accreditation Just wanted to flat it. Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry, flag it. Rubens Kuhl:Or a ranking system... (it should also not be) Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jonathan and Rubens points. Jeff Neuman:Sorry Jonathan - that was my instruction to make it easier to find the themes Jonathan Robinson:@Jeff / Sara. It is helpful. I agree with the highlights in this case :-) Steve Chan:@Jonathan, all, to the extent the staff highlighting is not helpful, or even misleading, definitely let us know! Justine Chew:@Donna, excellent news. Sarah L Verisign:Pre-approval of ann RSP without making commensurate changes to the test cases used during PDT might not improve performance at all if you take ICANNs data into account detailing the number of EBERO triggering incidents that are occurring. Jeff Neuman:For clarity - and I did not have a role in drafting the comments for Valideus - but those were not challenges, but rather statements addressing the challenges raised by others. Justine Chew:Could someone remind me of the difference between "accreditation" and "certification" plse? Donna Austin, Neustar:Justine, i don't think there is one. Justine Chew:@Donna, really?! Donna Austin, Neustar:Justine, in this discussion we have generally used them interchangeably. So I'm sure there is a difference, but in this context i don't believe there is. Rubens Kuhl:Justine, this is an area where there is the market reading of the terms and the ICANN reading of it. Usually, certification goes into deeper assessment and checking of a capability, while accreditation is lighter. But due to registrar relations that are called accreditation in ICANN world, people usually equate accreditaiton with a contract framework. Jeff Neuman:In the ICANN context, "Accreditation" generally means that based on your application, you are approved to perform certain services in the future.... Jonathan Robinson:There was an earlier comment that an approval process could test the ability to scale. There is no evidence provided for the fact that this could be done effectively. Such a process goes beyond setting a minimum standard and (potentially) confers authority to the tester (ICANN) for performance testing beyond minimum standards Jeff Neuman:"Certification" is a process that evaluates performance and certifies that you have met the performance standards (based on past behavior) Jeff Neuman:So, Accreditation looks towards the future, Certification looks to the past Jeff Neuman:But....that said....I am not sure that the comments here make that distinction and Donna is right that they use the terms interchangeably Justine Chew:Noted. Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Donna. Jonathan Robinson:@Jeff. Agreed that one could argue for a disctinction but they do seem to have been used interchangablly here Justine Chew:Thanks Rubens. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):they would be crazy not to Donna Rubens Kuhl:Scalability problems could be number of TLDs, number of DUMs or number of peak transactions. Usually the later is the one that hits more frequently. Jeff Neuman:They also need to provide supporting documentation to show evidence of their scalability. Jeff Neuman:So, it would not just be affirmatively making that assertion, but demonstrating their ability Rubens Kuhl:There is one small technical function that is linked to number of TLDs in DNSSEC, but it's unusual to hit such a problem. Rubens Kuhl:The more features of a registry system ICANN evaluates, the more liability it creates if such infrastructure doesn't deliver on that promise. Jonathan Robinson:@Rubens. Agreed. Christa Taylor:Slide 13 Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Jonathan, the pre-approval process is intended to establish that the potential RSP has the technical wherewithal to run a registry. Jonathan Robinson:Apologies. Old hand. Rubens Kuhl:And since new gTLDs are not getting the gigantic registration volumes once foreseen, scability concerns seem overzealous at this point. Donna Austin, Neustar:Good point Rubens, and also highlight the difficulties associated with predicting registration volumes. Rubens Kuhl:I don't see why we should stipulate ICANN doing it itself or outsourcing it. Donna Austin, Neustar:Can I make a quick comment before we move on? Jonathan Robinson:@Rubens. Agreed. Being responsible for it doesn't mean actually doing it Christa Taylor:I'll add to open that up next call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone bye ðŸ‘‹ for now Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Jonathan Rubens Kuhl:Bye all! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):ðŸ‘‹ Jonathan Robinson:Thank-you! Christa Taylor:Thanks All!

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 19 September 2017 @ 3:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

Dear All, The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 19 September 2017 at 3:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * RSP Accreditation Program 4. AOB The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS…. Chat soon! 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.

1 0

Recording, Attendance, AC recording, AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
by Julie Bisland Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The AC recording and AC Chat are listed below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 – Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p64hbbzg59r/<https://participate.icann.org/p64hbbzg59r/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=f0f4dcd59786ab91…> The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** 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 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7hkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 5 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach on Tuesday, 05 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Vanda Scartezini:hi Julie, Julie Bisland:hello Vanda :) Vanda Scartezini:already muted my phone Julie Bisland:excellent, thank you and welcome :) Vanda Scartezini:my office is in a large avenue and has always people singign in the street with lots of noise... Julie Bisland:oh my! sounds lovely (until you need quiet time) :) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Vanda has a stunning view I have seen some great post by Jorge Emily Barabas:slides are now unsynced so everyone can zoom as needed to read the text Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:I do see the page counter - x/23 - but can't see any slides. Anyone else? Rubens Kuhl:Katrin, normal for me using Firefox. Julie Bisland:Katrin, you may need to log out and back in. Christa Taylor:Working here as well Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:I see... :-/ Workaround has been downloading it. Alan Greenberg:It happens occasionally for reasons unknown. Relogging on tends to fixit. Jeff Neuman:I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." Jeff Neuman:I like trying to use the regional IGF networks if that is possible Jeff Neuman:just dont know if their rules allow that Jim Prendergast:as long as its basic awareness building and info sharing - shouldnt be a problem Jeff Neuman:How far in advance do we need to suggest topics to the IGF organizations Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff there is a strong nexus between Regional igfs and our ICANN hubs so should be ways Jim Prendergast:schedule varies - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.intgovforum.org_mul… Alan Greenberg:Important to understand that the only applicants for the program were ICANN insiders. Greg Shatan:ISOC and its chapters could be used as well. Rubens Kuhl:Some ccTLDs see ICANN outreach regarding new gTLDs as ICANN promoting one of their "sons" instead of applying similar amounts of money to also promote ccTLDs. Vanda Scartezini:EVEN IGF DOS NOT ACCESS COMPANIES AROUND THAT COULD APPLY Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and the National Initiatives are opportunities for outreach Vanda Scartezini:in our region is more associations in general that can make the information flows. Greg Shatan:Agree with Vanda that a way to reach the business sector is important. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yep avri doria:Basically should use as many of these channels as possible. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Jeff Neuman:THere are alo of responses that are great at a high level, but I am not sure that it helps us on a micro level. For example the BC says we should streamline the process, but what specifically can be streamlined? Jeff Neuman:I would love to state in the Preliminary report a question that states: "What can your SO/AC/Constituency do to improve awareness of the progra?" Jeff Neuman:program Greg Shatan:I would add to that Jeff: How can we help? Vanda Scartezini:like your question jeff Jeff Neuman:I agree with Cheryl that most of the comments do seem positive on keeping an Applicant Support Program in some form Jeff Neuman:Most also state that Applicant Support should involve more than just financial support, but also technical support, etc. Vanda Scartezini:during the survey I did in this region I promise to several companies to infrom them when the program will start Vanda Scartezini:even here cost was not the main point - infromation about on how to apply will be more relevant Christa Taylor:one sec Jeff Neuman:Applicants that wanted to be in the JAS program had to pay $47,000 up front as the reduced application fee Donna Austin, Neustar:dropping off adobe, will still be on the phone Vanda Scartezini:video with cations in aseveral language would be good Vanda Scartezini:captioning Phil Buckingham:Q : so how much should ICANN put up to support a programme . How we do we arrive at this number . Vanda Scartezini:to strat a new gTLD offer in the market you will need much more money than just the fees. so As I ahve asking here , the fees was not the barrier. Vanda Scartezini:the knowledge, timely aware, on how to trust to be backend technical etc are the barriers Sara Bockey:go ahead Vanda Scartezini:thank you for sharing your thoughts. appreciate the call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good call thanks everyone ðŸ‘‹ bye for now then... Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:Thanks and bye, everybody. Phil Buckingham:thanks very mcuh

1 0

Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 1 - 5 September 2017
by Emily Barabas Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/7hkhB. Slides are attached for reference. Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 2. SOIs -- No SOI updates 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions a. Applicant Support - Summary of discussions to date: possible reasons that may have contributed to the liminted number of applications; suggestions on how to address the issues identified (see slides for details). - Question 1.2.1 - feedback on proposal to expand the Applicant Support Program - BC, RySG, and ALAC provided feedback on Applicant Support for IDNs. - BC, RySG, ALAC, and Jannik Skou submitted comments on the concept of the "middle applicant." - Nominet and Afilias suggested focusing on other areas of the New gTLD ecosystem. - Valideus suggested research and studies into program needs and weaknesses. - John Poole opposed expanding the Applicant Support Program. - Question 1.2.2 - feedback on other support mechanisms beyond financial support/application submission. - Nominet - shorter and simpler documentation and publicity/education. - RySG – focus on application process and improving outreach and publication of the ASP. - ALAC – make criteria less stringent, expand the definition of communities, and expand technical training, mentorship, and knowledge/capacity building. - BC - support applicants targeting registrants in underserved regions that use the language and script of that region, leverage lessons learned from the JAS program; mechanisms should address TLD operator's needs; work with local/regional experts. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." - Question 1.2.3 -- suggestions for improving publicity/outreach. - Jannik Skou – engage with ccNSO/GAC/ALAC, add multilingual customer support, improve outreach materials. - Nominet – leverage regional IGFs. - RySG – improve outreach ans publication, build relationships with business associations. - Afilias - identify appropriate partners. - BC - simplify the process - ALAC – improve communications and expand training and awareness opportunities. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: I was wondering if there was anyone from the BC that could expand on the comment on "behavoir experienced in the last round." Jeff Neuman: I like trying to use the regional IGF networks if that is possible Jeff Neuman: just dont know if their rules allow that Jim Prendergast: as long as its basic awareness building and info sharing - shouldnt be a problem Jeff Neuman: How far in advance do we need to suggest topics to the IGF organizations Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Jeff there is a strong nexus between Regional igfs and our ICANN hubs so should be ways Jim Prendergast: schedule varies - http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-regional-and-national-i…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.intgovforum.org_mul…> Alan Greenberg: Important to understand that the only applicants for the program were ICANN insiders. Greg Shatan: ISOC and its chapters could be used as well. Rubens Kuhl: Some ccTLDs see ICANN outreach regarding new gTLDs as ICANN promoting one of their "sons" instead of applying similar amounts of money to also promote ccTLDs. Vanda Scartezini: EVEN IGF DOS NOT ACCESS COMPANIES AROUND THAT COULD APPLY Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): and the National Initiatives are opportunities for outreach Vanda Scartezini: in our region is more associations in general that can make the information flows. Greg Shatan: Agree with Vanda that a way to reach the business sector is important. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yep avri doria: Basically should use as many of these channels as possible. - Question 1.2.4 - suggestions for metrics that could be used to evaluate success. - Jannik Skou –number of domain names registered. - BC - number of workshops, attendance, and follow up communication - RySG - number of applications and number of successful applications. - ALAC – consider broader context of success; in terms of metrics, look at numbers of people within LDCs who participate and are successfully trained as registrars. - 1.2.5 - additional recommendations for improving ASP - BC - streamline the application process and improving the network of informal support for applicants. - ALAC - support people from underserved regions to improve chances of meeting eligibility criteria. - RySG - applicant must be able to demonstrate that there is a business case for the TLD. - NCSG - better advertising and an exclusive round for applicants from developing countries. - GAC - referenced CCTRT Draft Report comments. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: THere are alo of responses that are great at a high level, but I am not sure that it helps us on a micro level. For example the BC says we should streamline the process, but what specifically can be streamlined? Jeff Neuman: I would love to state in the Preliminary report a question that states: "What can your SO/AC/Constituency do to improve awareness of the program Jeff Neuman: I agree with Cheryl that most of the comments do seem positive on keeping an Applicant Support Program in some form Jeff Neuman: Most also state that Applicant Support should involve more than just financial support, but also technical support, etc. Vanda Scartezini: during the survey I did in this region I promise to several companies to infrom them when the program will start Vanda Scartezini: even here cost was not the main point - infromation about on how to apply will be more relevant - Important to take the next step in consolidating feedback and looking at specific opportunities for improvement in the program. - Applicants that received support were required to pay a part of the application fee in the 2012 round. Did this hinder applicants? From the chat: Jeff Neuman: Applicants that wanted to be in the JAS program had to pay $47,000 up front as the reduced application fee b. Communications - 1.9.1 - suggestions for additional areas for improvement in communications. - Jannik Skou - produce a video. - BRG - develop tailored information information and processes for different business models. - ALAC - regional teams need to be organized within underserved regions to more effectively introduce, educate and inform. - GAC UK - leverage regional IGFs. - RySG, Afilias - push notifications, SLAs for responding to applicant questions, helpline, searchable FAQ page and knowledge base, webinars and sessions with detailed minutes. - 1.9.2 - metrics to measure success of communications - BRG - mainstream media coverage, response time. - RySG, Afilias - hire an experienced firm to do comms, use established metrics. - ALAC - training program participation and successfully meeting goals, number of RSPs set up, number of outreach opportunities that get people to apply. - John Poole - total "revamp" From the chat: Vanda Scartezini: video with cations in aseveral language would be good Vanda Scartezini: captioning - We don't know to what extent reducing the application fee was addressing the main issue. Are there other other impediments to having successful application from developing economies? If so, what are those impediments? Not clear if more information would have helped. Hard to tell if we know what we are trying to accomplish and how we are going to accomplish it. - For some applicants, it wasn't so much an issue of the cost, it was that there wasn't a good enought business case to apply. - There was also a punitive aspect. If you applied for support and didn't succeed, that was the end of your application. Did this effect anyone? Timing issue may also have had an impact. - Agree the timing issue could have been important. A single awareness-raising event without sustained follow up may not be enough. Needs and approach may vary by region. It may take more time in some regions to develop plans and prepare applications. From the chat: Phil Buckingham: Q : so how much should ICANN put up to support a programme . How we do we arrive at this number . Vanda Scartezini: to strat a new gTLD offer in the market you will need much more money than just the fees. so As I ahve asking here , the fees was not the barrier. Vanda Scartezini: the knowledge, timely aware, on how to trust to be backend technical etc are the barriers 4. AOB - None

1 0

Work Track 1 Agenda for 5 September 2017 @ 20:00 UTC
by Sara Bockey Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

Dear All, Apologies for the delay! The next call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 5 September 2017 at 20:00 UTC. The proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Welcome & Agenda Overview 2. SOIs 3. Review of CC2 responses to WT1 questions * Applicant Support * Communications 4. AOB The CC2 responses we will be covering may be review in the google document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1427pgTCkguOj2NZZzMnz_H_lPe54dtvUErS…. Chat soon! 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.

1 0