Provision of back-end registry services
Hi All A working group of the RySG has been formed to consider a number of topics being discussed as part of this PDP. On Friday I posted the following email to the list, which resulted in quite a bit of discussion. I'm working through the ensuing discussion and will attempt to provide a summary for this group. Sara, I think RSP Accreditation will be discussed as part of WG 1 and request that this input be taken into account. I repost my email to this list for information and also to encourage more discussion on the topic. ___ As RSP Accreditation was identified as a high priority, and as Neustar is one of the leading RSP as a result of the new gTLD program, I'd like to start a discussion on the path forward. I've just finished listening to the recording from the GDD summit on the topic of certification of back-end registry providers. As some of you may recall, during that session Sean Kaine from Neustar requested that we step back from the solution, ie. RSP Accreditation and try to identify the problems we're trying to solve in order to be sure that we have the correct solution. Sean also acknowledged as part of his intervention that accreditation may well be the answer, but let's be sure we understand what problems we're trying to solve first. I acknowledge that many may consider this to be a dissenting point of view, but I would ask this group if we could at least have the discussion. I understand that many believe these discussions have been had before, but I would argue that those were largely absent the experience we have had since as a result of the implementation of the new gTLD program and 1000+ registry operators going live. I think it would also be helpful to define what we mean when we say 'accreditation'. It is possible that it means different things to different people and in this regard it would be helpful to have a common understanding. It may be that we come up with a few different versions of what 'accreditation' means and find that some of these are more palatable than others. I admit that I don't have a fully developed idea of what 'accreditation' actually means in this context, but I do expect that there are a number of ways that 'accreditation' could be achieved. Some of the concerns that Neustar has with accreditation are as follows: * The potential to create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in order to achieve accreditation * ICANN being responsible for the development and implementation of any accreditation program-I think we'd all agree that ICANN does not have a good track record in this regard. * Ability to maintain product differentiation * Creating another contracted party within ICANN-if a contract is required and fees are to be paid to ICANN in order to be accredited then RSPs could potentially create their own stakeholder group within the GNSO, ie a third party in the CPH * What are the implications, if any, on the Registry Agreement? To help us move forward in the manner I'm suggesting, I've identified some of the problems I believe we're trying to solve acknowledging that this list is not exhaustive: * The RSP needs the ability to interact directly with ICANN with regard to technical issues. * Streamline the 2012 new gTLD processes for any future round: o Remove the need for the same RSP to undergo the same PDT for every registry operator o Streamline the application process as it relates to the technical requirements o Make provision for applicants to select RSPs after securing the TLD o Find a more efficient way to swap out RSPs Following the discussion at the GDD Summit, ICANN staff committed to synthesize the discussion, and come back to us with next steps. I don't believe this has happened, but based on some of the chat on our call earlier this week it does seem that some work that is going on in this regard. I think it would be helpful to our discussion to understand what the status of what that work is and where it's headed. Looking forward to everyone's thoughts. Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
I agree with Donna's comments. An accreditation system should be mainly focussed on making it easier and cheaper for applicants to get their applications approved and to avoid duplications of work at the scale we have seen in the current round. Any review of technical details that is shared between applications should only have to be reviewed once. I hope this accreditation process is not viewed as an opportunity to add an additional barrier to competition in the application process but rather as a chance to simplify and streamline the process. Best regards, Volker Greimann Am 29.08.2016 um 22:51 schrieb Austin, Donna:
Hi All
A working group of the RySG has been formed to consider a number of topics being discussed as part of this PDP. On Friday I posted the following email to the list, which resulted in quite a bit of discussion. I’m working through the ensuing discussion and will attempt to provide a summary for this group.
Sara, I think RSP Accreditation will be discussed as part of WG 1 and request that this input be taken into account.
I repost my email to this list for information and also to encourage more discussion on the topic.
___
As RSP Accreditation was identified as a high priority, and as Neustar is one of the leading RSP as a result of the new gTLD program, I’d like to start a discussion on the path forward.
I’ve just finished listening to the recording from the GDD summit on the topic of certification of back-end registry providers.
As some of you may recall, during that session Sean Kaine from Neustar requested that we step back from the solution, ie. RSP Accreditation and try to identify the problems we’re trying to solve in order to be sure that we have the correct solution. Sean also acknowledged as part of his intervention that accreditation may well be the answer, but let’s be sure we understand what problems we’re trying to solve first.
I acknowledge that many may consider this to be a dissenting point of view, but I would ask this group if we could at least have the discussion. I understand that many believe these discussions have been had before, but I would argue that those were largely absent the experience we have had since as a result of the implementation of the new gTLD program and 1000+ registry operators going live.
I think it would also be helpful to define what we mean when we say ‘accreditation’. It is possible that it means different things to different people and in this regard it would be helpful to have a common understanding. It may be that we come up with a few different versions of what ‘accreditation’ means and find that some of these are more palatable than others. I admit that I don’t have a fully developed idea of what ‘accreditation’ actually means in this context, but I do expect that there are a number of ways that ‘accreditation’ could be achieved.
Some of the concerns that Neustar has with accreditation are as follows:
·The potential to create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in order to achieve accreditation
·ICANN being responsible for the development and implementation of any accreditation program—I think we’d all agree that ICANN does not have a good track record in this regard.
·Ability to maintain product differentiation
·Creating another contracted party within ICANN—if a contract is required and fees are to be paid to ICANN in order to be accredited then RSPs could potentially create their own stakeholder group within the GNSO, ie a third party in the CPH
·What are the implications, if any, on the Registry Agreement?
To help us move forward in the manner I’m suggesting, I’ve identified some of the problems I believe we’re trying to solve acknowledging that this list is not exhaustive:
·The RSP needs the ability to interact directly with ICANN with regard to technical issues.
·Streamline the 2012 new gTLD processes for any future round:
oRemove the need for the same RSP to undergo the same PDT for every registry operator
oStreamline the application process as it relates to the technical requirements
oMake provision for applicants to select RSPs after securing the TLD
oFind a more efficient way to swap out RSPs
Following the discussion at the GDD Summit, ICANN staff committed to synthesize the discussion, and come back to us with next steps. I don’t believe this has happened, but based on some of the chat on our call earlier this week it does seem that some work that is going on in this regard. I think it would be helpful to our discussion to understand what the status of what that work is and where it’s headed.
Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts.
Donna
*Donna Austin**:****Neustar, Inc.** *Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
*Cell:***+1.310.890.9655 *Email: *donna.austin@neustar.biz <mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.
*Follow Neustar:*cid:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>cid:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>cid:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/neustar>
P Please consider the environment before printing 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.
What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider. While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- 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 Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 09:58 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services I agree with Donna's comments. An accreditation system should be mainly focussed on making it easier and cheaper for applicants to get their applications approved and to avoid duplications of work at the scale we have seen in the current round. Any review of technical details that is shared between applications should only have to be reviewed once. I hope this accreditation process is not viewed as an opportunity to add an additional barrier to competition in the application process but rather as a chance to simplify and streamline the process. Best regards, Volker Greimann Am 29.08.2016 um 22:51 schrieb Austin, Donna: Hi All A working group of the RySG has been formed to consider a number of topics being discussed as part of this PDP. On Friday I posted the following email to the list, which resulted in quite a bit of discussion. I’m working through the ensuing discussion and will attempt to provide a summary for this group. Sara, I think RSP Accreditation will be discussed as part of WG 1 and request that this input be taken into account. I repost my email to this list for information and also to encourage more discussion on the topic. ___ As RSP Accreditation was identified as a high priority, and as Neustar is one of the leading RSP as a result of the new gTLD program, I’d like to start a discussion on the path forward. I’ve just finished listening to the recording from the GDD summit on the topic of certification of back-end registry providers. As some of you may recall, during that session Sean Kaine from Neustar requested that we step back from the solution, ie. RSP Accreditation and try to identify the problems we’re trying to solve in order to be sure that we have the correct solution. Sean also acknowledged as part of his intervention that accreditation may well be the answer, but let’s be sure we understand what problems we’re trying to solve first. I acknowledge that many may consider this to be a dissenting point of view, but I would ask this group if we could at least have the discussion. I understand that many believe these discussions have been had before, but I would argue that those were largely absent the experience we have had since as a result of the implementation of the new gTLD program and 1000+ registry operators going live. I think it would also be helpful to define what we mean when we say ‘accreditation’. It is possible that it means different things to different people and in this regard it would be helpful to have a common understanding. It may be that we come up with a few different versions of what ‘accreditation’ means and find that some of these are more palatable than others. I admit that I don’t have a fully developed idea of what ‘accreditation’ actually means in this context, but I do expect that there are a number of ways that ‘accreditation’ could be achieved. Some of the concerns that Neustar has with accreditation are as follows: · The potential to create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy in order to achieve accreditation · ICANN being responsible for the development and implementation of any accreditation program—I think we’d all agree that ICANN does not have a good track record in this regard. · Ability to maintain product differentiation · Creating another contracted party within ICANN—if a contract is required and fees are to be paid to ICANN in order to be accredited then RSPs could potentially create their own stakeholder group within the GNSO, ie a third party in the CPH · What are the implications, if any, on the Registry Agreement? To help us move forward in the manner I’m suggesting, I’ve identified some of the problems I believe we’re trying to solve acknowledging that this list is not exhaustive: · The RSP needs the ability to interact directly with ICANN with regard to technical issues. · Streamline the 2012 new gTLD processes for any future round: o Remove the need for the same RSP to undergo the same PDT for every registry operator o Streamline the application process as it relates to the technical requirements o Make provision for applicants to select RSPs after securing the TLD o Find a more efficient way to swap out RSPs Following the discussion at the GDD Summit, ICANN staff committed to synthesize the discussion, and come back to us with next steps. I don’t believe this has happened, but based on some of the chat on our call earlier this week it does seem that some work that is going on in this regard. I think it would be helpful to our discussion to understand what the status of what that work is and where it’s headed. Looking forward to everyone’s thoughts. Donna Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc. Policy and Industry Affairs Manager Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz<mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message. Follow Neustar: [id:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc> [id:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> [id:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0] Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> P Please consider the environment before printing 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.
Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> escreveu:
What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider.
Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition.
While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt.
I'm neutral on wording. Rubens
Rubens The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important. Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone. Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things. Both options create a form of standard. As for the data – I disagree. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> escreveu: What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider. Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition. While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt. I'm neutral on wording. Rubens
I see the accreditation as an option to streamline the process for those that want it. Ultimately, the RO is responsible for compliance with ICANN policy and its contractual obligations whether he employs a RSP or not. Accrediting or certifying RSPs would allow a better process to get technical requirements checked in bulk. Best, Volker Am 30.08.2016 um 15:30 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Rubens
The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important.
Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone.
Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things.
Both options create a form of standard.
As for the data – I disagree.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://michele.irish
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> *Date: *Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 *To: *Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> escreveu:
What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider.
Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data.
One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition.
While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt.
I'm neutral on wording.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ 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.
I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation. There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Rubens The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important. Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone. Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things. Both options create a form of standard. As for the data – I disagree. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=rsKaCFTAS_xeuZkRp4rTacIsxQtfzGu9aaJ7zgp893k&e=> http://blacknight.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=WsbKPNDF6xXlMUSi7m3af6u780P6n4OPiEva16TAR3Q&e=> http://www.blacknight.press<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=tAuufLQWDo780aMZgc58JYwUvxDbXwuzaRomojIJL-0&e=> - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=dXEDlX23_rIBYHzzKf8gD5lsHnH4lZb_hAY2yHx07ic&e=> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=RxbJurYc0jGtAemp7G6GphtFSd3GOrLnek76WuxK3X8&e=> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=SnDsMyTxoWEyY4LhjAoUMTITyLGmgAjCDzZJ9jIR1fo&e=> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> escreveu: What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider. Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition. While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt. I'm neutral on wording. Rubens
We should consider whether “accreditation” might be the better concept – if we have a perpetually open round top levels may become the new second levels as new brands roll out, reducing the dependence on the registrar layer. I’m not wed to the idea, but I see back-end registry service providers becoming increasingly important in the ecosystem. “Accreditation” would not only speed evaluation, but could provide some level of buying comfort to a potential new registry (similar to what registrar accreditation does for the second level end user). For what it’s worth and not in any way dogmatic. Just thinking out loud. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation. There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Rubens The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important. Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone. Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things. Both options create a form of standard. As for the data – I disagree. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=D...> http://blacknight.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQGa...> http://www.blacknight.press <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=D...> - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQG...> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DQMGaQ&...> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DQMGaQ&c...> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> > Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> > escreveu: What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider. Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition. While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt. I'm neutral on wording. Rubens
All, This is a great discussion and I believe we should document all of these pros and cons for WT1. Terminology (certification vs. accreditation vs. something else) will be important as we go down this path, but for now I would encourage us to stick to the concept of a voluntary process to pre-evaluate a registry-services provider such that it would not require a “re-evaluation” every single time it was associated with a new TLD application. This is the concept that I think of when we talk about this subject. All of the other issues we will need to address as well. Are they under contract with ICANN? If so, what does that contract look like? If they are under contract, would that be more akin to the types of MoUs that they have with EBEROs, Escrow Providers, etc. or more like a contract that they have with registrars? Under what circumstances, if any, would they need to be re-evaluated? WT-1 now has this issue and we will re-circulate the notes that have the problems which we are trying to solve and benefits. The benefits of having a “pre-evaluation process” would include (a) having consistency in evaluation results, (b) improving competition by allowing other third parties to become RSPs, (c) presumably lower TLD application fees for registry operators (since that part of the evaluation would not have to be performed every time), (d) lessening overall TLD application processing time. We can post the other benefits we came up with. We also need to document the negatives that have been pointed out such that if we did establish this pre-approval process, we design that process in such a way to avoid the negatives. Hope that all makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:54 PM To: 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services We should consider whether “accreditation” might be the better concept – if we have a perpetually open round top levels may become the new second levels as new brands roll out, reducing the dependence on the registrar layer. I’m not wed to the idea, but I see back-end registry service providers becoming increasingly important in the ecosystem. “Accreditation” would not only speed evaluation, but could provide some level of buying comfort to a potential new registry (similar to what registrar accreditation does for the second level end user). For what it’s worth and not in any way dogmatic. Just thinking out loud. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation. There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Rubens The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important. Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone. Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things. Both options create a form of standard. As for the data – I disagree. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=rsKaCFTAS_xeuZkRp4rTacIsxQtfzGu9aaJ7zgp893k&e=> http://blacknight.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=WsbKPNDF6xXlMUSi7m3af6u780P6n4OPiEva16TAR3Q&e=> http://www.blacknight.press<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=tAuufLQWDo780aMZgc58JYwUvxDbXwuzaRomojIJL-0&e=> - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=dXEDlX23_rIBYHzzKf8gD5lsHnH4lZb_hAY2yHx07ic&e=> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=RxbJurYc0jGtAemp7G6GphtFSd3GOrLnek76WuxK3X8&e=> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=SnDsMyTxoWEyY4LhjAoUMTITyLGmgAjCDzZJ9jIR1fo&e=> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> escreveu: What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider. Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition. While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt. I'm neutral on wording. Rubens
Thanks Jeff. Seems like the back-end providers having a contact with ICANN would introduce ICANN into a relationship with a registry’s vendors that doesn’t exist now and doesn’t apparently need to exist, given the absence of problems. I think most of us ICANNlibertarians think that the forced EBERO relationship is invasive enough – especially due to the lack of choice about who would step in. So, I guess from my point of view its not “accreditation” (as the meaning of that word has become known in ICANNland as opposed to university, so much as it is a “permit” that lasts for a certain number of years. We don’t want ICANN in the kitchen cooking, but it would be nice for them to check in every 5 years or so and make sure there are no rats in the kitchen. Best, Paul From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:55 AM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>; 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services All, This is a great discussion and I believe we should document all of these pros and cons for WT1. Terminology (certification vs. accreditation vs. something else) will be important as we go down this path, but for now I would encourage us to stick to the concept of a voluntary process to pre-evaluate a registry-services provider such that it would not require a “re-evaluation” every single time it was associated with a new TLD application. This is the concept that I think of when we talk about this subject. All of the other issues we will need to address as well. Are they under contract with ICANN? If so, what does that contract look like? If they are under contract, would that be more akin to the types of MoUs that they have with EBEROs, Escrow Providers, etc. or more like a contract that they have with registrars? Under what circumstances, if any, would they need to be re-evaluated? WT-1 now has this issue and we will re-circulate the notes that have the problems which we are trying to solve and benefits. The benefits of having a “pre-evaluation process” would include (a) having consistency in evaluation results, (b) improving competition by allowing other third parties to become RSPs, (c) presumably lower TLD application fees for registry operators (since that part of the evaluation would not have to be performed every time), (d) lessening overall TLD application processing time. We can post the other benefits we came up with. We also need to document the negatives that have been pointed out such that if we did establish this pre-approval process, we design that process in such a way to avoid the negatives. Hope that all makes sense. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:54 PM To: 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz <mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> >; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> >; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services We should consider whether “accreditation” might be the better concept – if we have a perpetually open round top levels may become the new second levels as new brands roll out, reducing the dependence on the registrar layer. I’m not wed to the idea, but I see back-end registry service providers becoming increasingly important in the ecosystem. “Accreditation” would not only speed evaluation, but could provide some level of buying comfort to a potential new registry (similar to what registrar accreditation does for the second level end user). For what it’s worth and not in any way dogmatic. Just thinking out loud. Best, Paul Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> >; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation. There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Rubens The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important. Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone. Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things. Both options create a form of standard. As for the data – I disagree. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=D...> http://blacknight.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQGa...> http://www.blacknight.press <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=D...> - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQG...> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DQMGaQ&...> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DQMGaQ&c...> ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br> > Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> > Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com> > escreveu: What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider. Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition. While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt. I'm neutral on wording. Rubens
Agreed, some form of certification would probably suffice. Sent from my iPad
On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:13, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Jeff.
Seems like the back-end providers having a contact with ICANN would introduce ICANN into a relationship with a registry’s vendors that doesn’t exist now and doesn’t apparently need to exist, given the absence of problems. I think most of us ICANNlibertarians think that the forced EBERO relationship is invasive enough – especially due to the lack of choice about who would step in. So, I guess from my point of view its not “accreditation” (as the meaning of that word has become known in ICANNland as opposed to university, so much as it is a “permit” that lasts for a certain number of years. We don’t want ICANN in the kitchen cooking, but it would be nice for them to check in every 5 years or so and make sure there are no rats in the kitchen.
Best, Paul
From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:55 AM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>; 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
All,
This is a great discussion and I believe we should document all of these pros and cons for WT1. Terminology (certification vs. accreditation vs. something else) will be important as we go down this path, but for now I would encourage us to stick to the concept of a voluntary process to pre-evaluate a registry-services provider such that it would not require a “re-evaluation” every single time it was associated with a new TLD application. This is the concept that I think of when we talk about this subject.
All of the other issues we will need to address as well. Are they under contract with ICANN? If so, what does that contract look like? If they are under contract, would that be more akin to the types of MoUs that they have with EBEROs, Escrow Providers, etc. or more like a contract that they have with registrars? Under what circumstances, if any, would they need to be re-evaluated?
WT-1 now has this issue and we will re-circulate the notes that have the problems which we are trying to solve and benefits. The benefits of having a “pre-evaluation process” would include (a) having consistency in evaluation results, (b) improving competition by allowing other third parties to become RSPs, (c) presumably lower TLD application fees for registry operators (since that part of the evaluation would not have to be performed every time), (d) lessening overall TLD application processing time. We can post the other benefits we came up with.
We also need to document the negatives that have been pointed out such that if we did establish this pre-approval process, we design that process in such a way to avoid the negatives.
Hope that all makes sense.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:54 PM To: 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
We should consider whether “accreditation” might be the better concept – if we have a perpetually open round top levels may become the new second levels as new brands roll out, reducing the dependence on the registrar layer. I’m not wed to the idea, but I see back-end registry service providers becoming increasingly important in the ecosystem. “Accreditation” would not only speed evaluation, but could provide some level of buying comfort to a potential new registry (similar to what registrar accreditation does for the second level end user).
For what it’s worth and not in any way dogmatic. Just thinking out loud.
Best, Paul
Paul D. McGrady, Jr. policy@paulmcgrady.com
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation.
There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve.
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
Rubens
The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important. Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone. Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things. Both options create a form of standard.
As for the data – I disagree.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> escreveu:
What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider.
Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data.
One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition.
While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt.
I'm neutral on wording.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
+1. Le 31/08/2016 à 22:12, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz a écrit :
Agreed, some form of certification would probably suffice.
Sent from my iPad
On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:13, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote:
Thanks Jeff.
Seems like the back-end providers having a contact with ICANN would introduce ICANN into a relationship with a registry’s vendors that doesn’t exist now and doesn’t apparently need to exist, given the absence of problems. I think most of us ICANNlibertarians think that the forced EBERO relationship is invasive enough – especially due to the lack of choice about who would step in. So, I guess from my point of view its not “accreditation” (as the meaning of that word has become known in ICANNland as opposed to university, so much as it is a “permit” that lasts for a certain number of years. We don’t want ICANN in the kitchen cooking, but it would be nice for them to check in every 5 years or so and make sure there are no rats in the kitchen.
Best,
Paul
*From:*Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:55 AM *To:* Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>; 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz <mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
All,
This is a great discussion and I believe we should document all of these pros and cons for WT1. Terminology (certification vs. accreditation vs. something else) will be important as we go down this path, but for now I would encourage us to stick to the concept of a voluntary process to pre-evaluate a registry-services provider such that it would not require a “re-evaluation” every single time it was associated with a new TLD application. This is the concept that I think of when we talk about this subject.
All of the other issues we will need to address as well. Are they under contract with ICANN? If so, what does that contract look like? If they are under contract, would that be more akin to the types of MoUs that they have with EBEROs, Escrow Providers, etc. or more like a contract that they have with registrars? Under what circumstances, if any, would they need to be re-evaluated?
WT-1 now has this issue and we will re-circulate the notes that have the problems which we are trying to solve and benefits. The benefits of having a “pre-evaluation process” would include (a) having consistency in evaluation results, (b) improving competition by allowing other third parties to become RSPs, (c) presumably lower TLD application fees for registry operators (since that part of the evaluation would not have to be performed every time), (d) lessening overall TLD application processing time. We can post the other benefits we came up with.
We also need to document the negatives that have been pointed out such that if we did establish this pre-approval process, we design that process in such a way to avoid the negatives.
Hope that all makes sense.
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul McGrady *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:54 PM *To:* 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz <mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
We should consider whether “accreditation” might be the better concept – if we have a perpetually open round top levels may become the new second levels as new brands roll out, reducing the dependence on the registrar layer. I’m not wed to the idea, but I see back-end registry service providers becoming increasingly important in the ecosystem. “Accreditation” would not only speed evaluation, but could provide some level of buying comfort to a potential new registry (similar to what registrar accreditation does for the second level end user).
For what it’s worth and not in any way dogmatic. Just thinking out loud.
Best,
Paul
Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Austin, Donna *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM *To:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation.
There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve.
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM *To:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
Rubens
The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important.
Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone.
Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things.
Both options create a form of standard.
As for the data – I disagree.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=D...>
http://blacknight.blog/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQGa...>
http://www.blacknight.press <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=D...> - get our latest news & media coverage
http://www.technology.ie <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQG...>
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DQMGaQ&...>
Random Stuff: http://michele.irish <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DQMGaQ&c...>
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> *Date: *Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18 *To: *Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> escreveu:
What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider.
Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data.
One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition.
While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt.
I'm neutral on wording.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Austin, Donna -
Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands -
Jeff Neuman -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Paul McGrady -
Rubens Kuhl -
Volker Greimann -
Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz