Hi Jeff,

 

Pros/cons related to accreditation are listed in the Sub Team 1 working document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit#heading=h.q3yqx325o7.

 

Staff will double check the most recent sub team call recordings to ensure all pros/cons are captured in the document.

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Date: Tuesday 4 October 2016 at 03:48
To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - 4th Meeting - Proposed Agenda

 

Donna,

 

Although I appreciate that you have been out for the past two weeks, there were others from your company that were on the calls and could have provided input while you were out.  That said, I did ask staff to previously pull all of the information on the benefits and pitfalls of “pre-approval” of registry operators.  I am staying away from the term accreditation since as you pointed out, that implies a form of contractual relationship with ICANN.  I am not sure if that will be ready for this call.  But remember, we are not making any decisions on this call, just progressing the discussion.   That discussion can (and will) continue on the e-mail list, which should give you additional time for input.

 

I do not believe it is fair to the co-chairs of the group to ask them last minute to change the topics for the call when they have been preparing for this discussion throughout the week.    

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

 

 

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 8:11 PM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - 4th Meeting - Proposed Agenda

 

Dear Steve

 

Sincere apologies for dragging you to my defense on accreditation. I do agree with you that it is important, before deciding solutions, that we need to start with a clear understanding of the problem.

 

Donna

 

From: Steve Chan [mailto:steve.chan@icann.org]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 4:58 PM
To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - 4th Meeting - Proposed Agenda

 

Hello All,

 

As much as I appreciate Donna considering my support of her position as an asset, I wanted to provide a bit of context around my comments on the last WT1 call. As staff support, our responsibility is to help steward the PDP process, not to support any WG member’s position. The point I was trying to make, and not necessarily specific to just the RSP accreditation/certification topic, is that it can be tempting to jump to solutions and outcomes, rather than for instance, starting first with a clear understanding of the problem, establishing requirements for the solution, then defining the proposed solution. The exact steps are open to debate, but the idea is fairly simple – the WG will be better equipped to develop solutions that are rightsized to the identified problem.     

 

Apologies if my comments were misconstrued or simply poorly made.

 

Best,

Steve

 

From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>
Date: Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:18 PM
To: Sara Bockey <sbockey@godaddy.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - 4th Meeting - Proposed Agenda

 

Sara, all

 

Can I respectfully request that we defer any further discussion on Accreditation until I have had an opportunity to digest previous discussions and provide input to my request that we consider the problems we are trying to solve before jumping to the solution of ‘accreditation’. A request supported by Steve Chan on the previous call.

 

On previous calls I had requested that we consider this issue from the perspective of applicants, RSPs and ICANN and also that we understand the current process before jumping to a solution and I don’t believe this has been done.

 

I have been on vacation and travelling for the past three weeks and unfortunately I have not been able to spend as much time on this matter as required.

 

I would greatly appreciate it if we could not discuss accreditation on the upcoming call to allow me some time. I’m sure there are plenty other topics that can fill the void.

 

Thanks

 

Donna

 

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sara Bockey
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 10:25 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] New gTLDs, Work Track 1 - 4th Meeting - Proposed Agenda

 

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@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.