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@paulmcgrady.com From: 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@blacknight.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: 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@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@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@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=D...> http://blacknight.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQGa...> http://www.blacknight.press <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=D...> - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQG...> 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&c...> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> > Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@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@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