[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] First Meeting

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On Aug 14, 2016, at 6:39 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As announced, our first meeting is schedule for Tuesday 16 August at
> 15UTC.  You should have all received an invitation already.

Since I'm unsure at this point if I will be able to join, I'll excuse myself but might join if I'm able to, perhaps late.

> 
> The meeting will last 1 hour and as this is the first meeting, I will be
> chairing, hopefully for the last time.
> 
> The Agenda for this first meeting:
> 
> 0) Review Agenda
> 
> 1) Discuss SOI and the like - All participants in the  group must
> submit SOI, preferably before the first meeting.  For the most part,
> members of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures group will have already
> done so, but anyone who has not done so is requested to take care of this.

The sub-team list have a few without SOIs... 

> 
> 2)  Pick Leadership for the Track 1 Sub Team.  This can be one person or
> several who share the responsibilities, it is up to the group.  The
> requirement is for at least one person to take on the task.

Not coming forward for WT1, so I'm supporting the group decision. 


> 
> One note: Among the items on this Sub Teams list is:
> 
>  * Accreditation Programs: As there appears to be a limited set of
>    technical service and Escrow providers, would the program benefit
>    from an accreditation program for third party service providers? If
>    so, would this simplify the application process with a set of
>    pre-qualified providers to choose from?

I would only question whether such choosing needs to happen at application time. One option would be applicant agreeing to pick from at then-current accredited providers at contract signing time, an idea for which some other WG members expressed support during initial discussions. 


> Are there other impacts that
>    an accreditation program may have on the application process?
> 

Not directly from the accreditation program per se, but the same conditions that brought the idea of accreditation (limited set of providers, no failure at application time due to technical requirements, technical SLAs being easier to enforce, qualified providers offering services for registries operators that are not themselves) brings up the idea of removing the need to demonstrante technical competence at application time, although keeping it as a contract signing requirement. This is not an impact of the accreditation program, but an effect that share a root cause. 



> 
> As this conversation already has been discussed a bit in the full group
> as an issue that might be able to proceed in parallel with the work of
> the PDP WG, the group is invited to consider taking this up early in its
> schedule.
> 

Agreed. 



Rubens