Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016 1. Co-Chairs Notes: · Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. · Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs. 2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...) Notes: A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far: Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10 · Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. · Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. · Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way. 2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... Notes: · Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. · Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). · Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received. 3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s) Notes: · Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. · Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. · Develop pros and cons for the program. · Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list.
Dear all: Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized [adjourned] I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note. Thank you, Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016 1. Co-Chairs Notes: • Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. • Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs. 2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...) Notes: A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far: Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10 • Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. • Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. • Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way. 2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... Notes: • Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. • Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). • Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received. 3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s) Notes: • Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. • Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. • Develop pros and cons for the program. • Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was: Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission? Happy Friday and weekend to all, Heather ________________________________ From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear all: Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized [adjourned] I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note. Thank you, Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016 1. Co-Chairs Notes: • Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. • Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs. 2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...) Notes: A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far: Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10 • Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. • Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. • Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way. 2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... Notes: • Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. • Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). • Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received. 3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s) Notes: • Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. • Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. • Develop pros and cons for the program. • Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers. I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters. Best, Volker Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest:
Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was:
Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission?
Happy Friday and weekend to all,
Heather
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com> *Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear all:
Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference.
Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration.
* * * *
Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time.
* * * *
Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services
Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved.
Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized
[adjourned]
I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note.
Thank you,
**
*Phillip V. Marano*
*MAYER ▪ BROWN*
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016*
/1. Co-Chairs/
*Notes: *
·Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair.
·Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs.
/2. //Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...
*Notes:*
A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far:
Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11
Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10
Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11
Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10
·Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56.
·Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee.
·Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way.
/2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document/
*Action Items:*
1.Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August).
*2.***Review the draft conclusions document at*: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu...
**
*Notes: *
·Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received.
·Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled).
·Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received.
/3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s)/
*Notes:*
·Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done.
·Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues.
·Develop pros and cons for the program.
·Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list.
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hello I agree. Re-auditing is a waste of money for applicants, back end operators and icann. Accrediting will help to decrease some workload, and thus some pricing (hopefully). Best regards Frederic Le 22/07/2016 à 10:43, Volker Greimann a écrit :
Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers.
I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters.
Best,
Volker
Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest:
Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was:
Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission?
Happy Friday and weekend to all,
Heather
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com> *Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear all:
Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference.
Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration.
* * * *
Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time.
* * * *
Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services
Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved.
Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized
[adjourned]
I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note.
Thank you,
**
*Phillip V. Marano*
*MAYER ▪ BROWN*
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings.
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016*
/1. Co-Chairs/
*Notes: *
·Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair.
·Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs.
/2. //Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...
*Notes:*
A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far:
Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11
Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10
Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11
Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10
·Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56.
·Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee.
·Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way.
/2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document/
*Action Items:*
1.Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August).
*2.***Review the draft conclusions document at*: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu...
**
*Notes: *
·Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received.
·Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled).
·Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received.
/3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s)/
*Notes:*
·Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done.
·Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues.
·Develop pros and cons for the program.
·Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list.
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:www.key-systems.net /www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:www.key-systems.net /www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- *Frédéric Guillemaut * Directeur Associé SafeBrands <https://www.safebrands.fr> Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20 www.safebrands.fr <https://www.safebrands.fr> - l’actualité des noms de domaine <https://www.safebrands.info> *Siège social : * Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai 37, rue Guibal 13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France
Disagree. Perhaps a lighter audit may make sense, but we should not assume that any company’s practices have remained static from a previous audit that is more than 1 year old. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Hello I agree. Re-auditing is a waste of money for applicants, back end operators and icann. Accrediting will help to decrease some workload, and thus some pricing (hopefully). Best regards Frederic Le 22/07/2016 à 10:43, Volker Greimann a écrit : Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers. I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters. Best, Volker Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest: Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was: Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission? Happy Friday and weekend to all, Heather ________________________________ From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com><mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear all: Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized [adjourned] I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note. Thank you, Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016 1. Co-Chairs Notes: • Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. • Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs. 2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...) Notes: A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far: Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10 • Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. • Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. • Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way. 2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... Notes: • Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. • Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). • Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received. 3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s) Notes: • Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. • Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. • Develop pros and cons for the program. • Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé SafeBrands [cid:image001.png@01D1E3EE.8CD313A0]<https://www.safebrands.fr> Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20 www.safebrands.fr<https://www.safebrands.fr> - l’actualité des noms de domaine<https://www.safebrands.info> Siège social : Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai 37, rue Guibal 13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France
Unless you have reason to believe that they’ve done something wrong why would you assume that they have? Bear in mind that the backend service provider is NOT the contracted party with ICANN so it is still up to the registry operator to ensure compliance etc., The concept of accrediting backend service providers is to help make the entire process work better from a purely technical perspective. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com> Date: Friday 22 July 2016 at 12:56 To: "fg@safebrands.com" <fg@safebrands.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Disagree. Perhaps a lighter audit may make sense, but we should not assume that any company’s practices have remained static from a previous audit that is more than 1 year old. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Hello I agree. Re-auditing is a waste of money for applicants, back end operators and icann. Accrediting will help to decrease some workload, and thus some pricing (hopefully). Best regards Frederic Le 22/07/2016 à 10:43, Volker Greimann a écrit : Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers. I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters. Best, Volker Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest: Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was: Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission? Happy Friday and weekend to all, Heather ________________________________ From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com><mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear all: Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized [adjourned] I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note. Thank you, Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016 1. Co-Chairs Notes: • Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. • Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs. 2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...) Notes: A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far: Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10 • Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. • Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. • Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way. 2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... Notes: • Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. • Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). • Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received. 3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s) Notes: • Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. • Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. • Develop pros and cons for the program. • Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé SafeBrands [cid:image001.png@01D1E419.2AF01EF0]<https://www.safebrands.fr> Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20 www.safebrands.fr<https://www.safebrands.fr> - l’actualité des noms de domaine<https://www.safebrands.info> Siège social : Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai 37, rue Guibal 13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France
Totally agree Michele if the back end was not in the application form as part of the new registry technical compliance with the application. In such case the backend service shall be one with signed agreement with ICANN as I saw here or at least a ccTLD as we also saw in Lac region. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:01 AM To: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com>, Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands <fg@safebrands.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Unless you have reason to believe that they’ve done something wrong why would you assume that they have? Bear in mind that the backend service provider is NOT the contracted party with ICANN so it is still up to the registry operator to ensure compliance etc., The concept of accrediting backend service providers is to help make the entire process work better from a purely technical perspective. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com> Date: Friday 22 July 2016 at 12:56 To: "fg@safebrands.com" <fg@safebrands.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Disagree. Perhaps a lighter audit may make sense, but we should not assume that any company’s practices have remained static from a previous audit that is more than 1 year old. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Hello I agree. Re-auditing is a waste of money for applicants, back end operators and icann. Accrediting will help to decrease some workload, and thus some pricing (hopefully). Best regards Frederic Le 22/07/2016 à 10:43, Volker Greimann a écrit : Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers. I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters. Best, Volker Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest: Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was: Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission? Happy Friday and weekend to all, Heather ________________________________ From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com><mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear all: Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized [adjourned] I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note. Thank you, Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016 1. Co-Chairs Notes: • Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. • Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs. 2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...) Notes: A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far: Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10 • Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. • Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. • Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way. 2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... Notes: • Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. • Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). • Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received. 3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s) Notes: • Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. • Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. • Develop pros and cons for the program. • Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé SafeBrands [cid:image001.png@01D1E3FE.0FF1D3C0]<https://www.safebrands.fr> Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20 www.safebrands.fr<https://www.safebrands.fr> - l’actualité des noms de domaine<https://www.safebrands.info> Siège social : Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai 37, rue Guibal 13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France
Agree with Michele. We are not talking about business practices -- just merely technical/operational interfaces. If the registry already is operating, it is subject to strict SLAs and ICANN monitors performance. In other words, operating registries already are being "re-tested" constantly. Best, Jon
On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Unless you have reason to believe that they’ve done something wrong why would you assume that they have?
Bear in mind that the backend service provider is NOT the contracted party with ICANN so it is still up to the registry operator to ensure compliance etc., The concept of accrediting backend service providers is to help make the entire process work better from a purely technical perspective.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ <http://www.blacknight.host/> http://blog.blacknight.com/ <http://blog.blacknight.com/> http://ceo.hosting/ <http://ceo.hosting/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com <mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>> Date: Friday 22 July 2016 at 12:56 To: "fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com>" <fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com>>, "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] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Disagree. Perhaps a lighter audit may make sense, but we should not assume that any company’s practices have remained static from a previous audit that is more than 1 year old.
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Hello I agree.
Re-auditing is a waste of money for applicants, back end operators and icann.
Accrediting will help to decrease some workload, and thus some pricing (hopefully).
Best regards Frederic
Le 22/07/2016 à 10:43, Volker Greimann a écrit :
Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers. I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters.
Best, Volker
Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest:
Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was:
Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission?
Happy Friday and weekend to all,
Heather
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com> <mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear all:
Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference.
Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized
[adjourned]
I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note.
Thank you,
Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016
1. Co-Chairs
Notes: · Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. · Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs.
2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...>)
Notes:
A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far:
Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10
· Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. · Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. · Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way.
2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document
Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu...>
Notes: · Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. · Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). · Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received.
3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s)
Notes: · Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. · Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. · Develop pros and cons for the program. · Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> -- Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé SafeBrands <image001.png> <https://www.safebrands.fr/> Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20 www.safebrands.fr <https://www.safebrands.fr/> - l’actualité des noms de domaine <https://www.safebrands.info/> Siège social : Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai 37, rue Guibal 13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
It might also be worth noting that the application process for making a material subcontracting arrangement (i.e. changing backend registry service providers once a registry agreement has been executed) is already rather streamlined for existing providers. The current iteration of the Application for Assignment Form asks filers to “[l]ist (no more than 5) new gTLDs currently operated by [the] proposed subcontractor.” ICANN, Application for Assignment Form: Materials Subcontracting Arrangement<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/application-assignment-form-mate...>, at p. 6 (April 25, 2016). Filers need to respond to any of the “technical questions” unless “the proposed subcontractor does not currently operate any new gTLDs….” See id. at p. 9. Put another way, when changing to an existing provider, filers need not provide details for review by ICANN or an external evaluation panel describing inter alia SRS, EPP, WHOIS, the registration life cycle, security policies, data escrow, DNSSEC, IDNs, failover testing or data backup policies. Nevertheless, technical testing is still currently conducted by ICANN for all TLDs that have either completed PDT or been delegated. See ICANN, Material Subcontracting Arrangement Guide<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/material-subcontracting-arrangem...>, at p. 6 (October 2015). Thus, a form of accreditation system arguably already exists for existing providers in the context of applications for material subcontracting arrangement. Thank you, Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 8:51 AM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Agree with Michele. We are not talking about business practices -- just merely technical/operational interfaces. If the registry already is operating, it is subject to strict SLAs and ICANN monitors performance. In other words, operating registries already are being "re-tested" constantly. Best, Jon On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: Unless you have reason to believe that they’ve done something wrong why would you assume that they have? Bear in mind that the backend service provider is NOT the contracted party with ICANN so it is still up to the registry operator to ensure compliance etc., The concept of accrediting backend service providers is to help make the entire process work better from a purely technical perspective. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com<mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>> Date: Friday 22 July 2016 at 12:56 To: "fg@safebrands.com<mailto:fg@safebrands.com>" <fg@safebrands.com<mailto:fg@safebrands.com>>, "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] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Disagree. Perhaps a lighter audit may make sense, but we should not assume that any company’s practices have remained static from a previous audit that is more than 1 year old. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Hello I agree. Re-auditing is a waste of money for applicants, back end operators and icann. Accrediting will help to decrease some workload, and thus some pricing (hopefully). Best regards Frederic Le 22/07/2016 à 10:43, Volker Greimann a écrit : Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers. I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters. Best, Volker Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest: Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was: Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission? Happy Friday and weekend to all, Heather ________________________________ From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com><mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear all: Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized [adjourned] I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note. Thank you, Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016 1. Co-Chairs Notes: • Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. • Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs. 2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...) Notes: A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far: Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10 • Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. • Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. • Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way. 2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... Notes: • Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. • Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). • Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received. 3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s) Notes: • Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. • Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. • Develop pros and cons for the program. • Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé SafeBrands <image001.png><https://www.safebrands.fr/> Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20 www.safebrands.fr<https://www.safebrands.fr/> - l’actualité des noms de domaine<https://www.safebrands.info/> Siège social : Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai 37, rue Guibal 13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Phillip: Unfortunately, having gone through it a couple of times now, it is far from streamlined. Best, Jon
On Jul 22, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com> wrote:
It might also be worth noting that the application process for making a material subcontracting arrangement (i.e. changing backend registry service providers once a registry agreement has been executed) is already rather streamlined for existing providers.
The current iteration of the Application for Assignment Form asks filers to “[l]ist (no more than 5) new gTLDs currently operated by [the] proposed subcontractor.” ICANN, Application for Assignment Form: Materials Subcontracting Arrangement <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/application-assignment-form-mate...>, at p. 6 (April 25, 2016). Filers need to respond to any of the “technical questions” unless “the proposed subcontractor does not currently operate any new gTLDs….” See id. at p. 9. Put another way, when changing to an existing provider, filers need not provide details for review by ICANN or an external evaluation panel describing inter alia SRS, EPP, WHOIS, the registration life cycle, security policies, data escrow, DNSSEC, IDNs, failover testing or data backup policies.
Nevertheless, technical testing is still currently conducted by ICANN for all TLDs that have either completed PDT or been delegated. See ICANN, Material Subcontracting Arrangement Guide <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/material-subcontracting-arrangem...>, at p. 6 (October 2015).
Thus, a form of accreditation system arguably already exists for existing providers in the context of applications for material subcontracting arrangement.
Thank you,
Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 8:51 AM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Agree with Michele. We are not talking about business practices -- just merely technical/operational interfaces. If the registry already is operating, it is subject to strict SLAs and ICANN monitors performance. In other words, operating registries already are being "re-tested" constantly.
Best,
Jon
On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote:
Unless you have reason to believe that they’ve done something wrong why would you assume that they have?
Bear in mind that the backend service provider is NOT the contracted party with ICANN so it is still up to the registry operator to ensure compliance etc., The concept of accrediting backend service providers is to help make the entire process work better from a purely technical perspective.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ <http://www.blacknight.host/> http://blog.blacknight.com/ <http://blog.blacknight.com/> http://ceo.hosting/ <http://ceo.hosting/> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com <mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>> Date: Friday 22 July 2016 at 12:56 To: "fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com>" <fg@safebrands.com <mailto:fg@safebrands.com>>, "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] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Disagree. Perhaps a lighter audit may make sense, but we should not assume that any company’s practices have remained static from a previous audit that is more than 1 year old.
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Hello I agree.
Re-auditing is a waste of money for applicants, back end operators and icann.
Accrediting will help to decrease some workload, and thus some pricing (hopefully).
Best regards Frederic
Le 22/07/2016 à 10:43, Volker Greimann a écrit : Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers. I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters.
Best, Volker
Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest: Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was:
Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission?
Happy Friday and weekend to all,
Heather
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com> <mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear all:
Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference.
Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized
[adjourned]
I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note.
Thank you,
Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016
Dear PDP WG members,
Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016
1. Co-Chairs
Notes: · Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. · Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs.
2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...>)
Notes:
A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far:
Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10
· Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. · Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. · Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way.
2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document
Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu...>
Notes: · Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. · Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). · Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received.
3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s)
Notes: · Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. · Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. · Develop pros and cons for the program. · Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
-- Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé SafeBrands <image001.png> <https://www.safebrands.fr/> Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20 www.safebrands.fr <https://www.safebrands.fr/> - l’actualité des noms de domaine <https://www.safebrands.info/> Siège social : Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai 37, rue Guibal 13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
If there is an ongoing testing/audit process, then I agree that there is less of a need for a formal audit. From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 8:51 AM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Cc: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com>; Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands <fg@safebrands.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Agree with Michele. We are not talking about business practices -- just merely technical/operational interfaces. If the registry already is operating, it is subject to strict SLAs and ICANN monitors performance. In other words, operating registries already are being "re-tested" constantly. Best, Jon On Jul 22, 2016, at 8:01 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: Unless you have reason to believe that they’ve done something wrong why would you assume that they have? Bear in mind that the backend service provider is NOT the contracted party with ICANN so it is still up to the registry operator to ensure compliance etc., The concept of accrediting backend service providers is to help make the entire process work better from a purely technical perspective. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com<mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>> Date: Friday 22 July 2016 at 12:56 To: "fg@safebrands.com<mailto:fg@safebrands.com>" <fg@safebrands.com<mailto:fg@safebrands.com>>, "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] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Disagree. Perhaps a lighter audit may make sense, but we should not assume that any company’s practices have remained static from a previous audit that is more than 1 year old. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Hello I agree. Re-auditing is a waste of money for applicants, back end operators and icann. Accrediting will help to decrease some workload, and thus some pricing (hopefully). Best regards Frederic Le 22/07/2016 à 10:43, Volker Greimann a écrit : Using an accredited backend service provider with an approved suite of services would greatly reduce costs for applicants as the same technical requirements would not have to be reviewed over and over again by the evaluators, thus allowing ICANN to reduce their numbers. I would go even further and suggest that backend service providers that have supported applications in the previous round would be eligible for automatic accreditation provided they use a suite of services previously approved by ICANN in a 2013 round new gTLD application. If any technical requirements were to change between the rounds, accreditation review would only have to focus on the changed parameters. Best, Volker Am 22.07.2016 um 08:13 schrieb Heather Forrest: Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was: Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission? Happy Friday and weekend to all, Heather ________________________________ From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com><mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear all: Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference. Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.” In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.” It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program. Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration. * * * * Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time. * * * * Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved. Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed it is a question of which questions can be standardized [adjourned] I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note. Thank you, Phillip V. Marano MAYER ▪ BROWN From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016 Dear PDP WG members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July. 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 transcript. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016 1. Co-Chairs Notes: • Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair. • Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs. 2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2z...) Notes: A reminder was sent 18 July. Please sign up by 22 July. Volunteers so far: Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11 Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10 Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11 Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10 • Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56. • Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet. Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee. • Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need. Could be done like CC1 or in some other way. 2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document Action Items: 1. Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August). 2. Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu... Notes: • Deadline: 25 July. Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received. • Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time. Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled). • Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects. May change as CC1 responses are received. 3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s) Notes: • Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done. • Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues. • Develop pros and cons for the program. • Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list. Send further comments to the list. __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Frédéric Guillemaut Directeur Associé SafeBrands <image001.png><https://www.safebrands.fr/> Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07 Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20 www.safebrands.fr<https://www.safebrands.fr/> - l’actualité des noms de domaine<https://www.safebrands.info/> Siège social : Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai 37, rue Guibal 13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
participants (9)
-
Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands -
Heather Forrest -
Jon Nevett -
Julie Hedlund -
Marano, Phillip V. -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Vanda Scartezini -
Victoria Sheckler -
Volker Greimann