[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 1 SubTeam Meeting 03 October

Thu Oct 6 23:45:21 UTC 2016

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 03 October.  These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording.   See the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/x/tQ2bAw. Apologies for the late delivery – I knew I missed at least a few points and had to find time to review the recording.

Best,

Steve

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue Tuesday, 04 October 2016 at 03:00 UTC

Apologies:  Laura Watkins, Katrin Ohlmer, Vanda Scartezini,  Ashley Roberts

On audio only:

Agenda: 

 1.      Welcome

2.      SOIs

3.      Accreditation Discussion (continued)

4.      Application Support

5.       AOB

Notes: 

1. Accreditation Discussion (cont.)

Why is it needed?

Christa - Most efficient way to mange through the process to TLD delegation. Avoids repeating the same process over and over again in evaluation, PDT, etc.

Jeff - Here were 7 reasons I gave on a previous email:  

    1.  Will lead to lower application fees for registry operators.

    2.  Greater initial choice in back end operators

    3.  Quicker processing of applications if accreditation done in advance

    4.  consistency In evaluation results for registry operator

    5.  Quicker time to delegation as all pdt tests done in advance

    6.  Increases portability of back end registry operators and simplifies Icann processes to change back end operators

    7.  Could lessen costs and time for switching back end providers

Donna - Applicant challenges to answering questions. Issues for RSPs going through PDP for every registry. RSP transition. Neustar is a large RSP, will likely have useful contributions to discussion. Can things be slowed down?

Christa - Middle ground - make some progress and can continue to bring up next meeting (and beyond), since there are multiple passes for each topic.

Jeff – Not making any final decisions on this meeting. Discussion began some time ago and will not end today. Not just about PDT. Also related to clarifying questions, inconsistencies in evaluation results, inability to streamline processes (e.g., applying same answer over many applications), more choices for RSPs, quicker delegation, increases portability. Should review the notes from GDD summit as well.

Christa - Oct 2009 document discussed accreditation (e.g. phase 4 documentation). Might provide clues to what should be included in testing for “certification”, how time and money can be saved. Also provides proposal for pricing/cost.

Donna - Only one solution has been considered. What other options are available? Could there be other methods to streamline, like only testing technical or PDT once for the same RSP? What are the technical requirements for ensuring DNS stability?

Christa – look at other options during next meeting.

Jeff - Should look at multiple solutions, though only one has been raised. Listed a number of advantages beyond just streamlining PDT. Suggested in GDD New gTLD Program Reviews.

Christa - Have the processes been identified that would be considered as a part of “accreditation”?

Avri - What about downsides? What benefits can be considered requirements versus nice to have?

Cecilia - logistics, circulate materials via email ahead of the meeting. Would promote discussions on the call and email. Should also in general conduct email conversations.

Jeff - GDD Summit - extensive discussions between front-end registries, registrars, and RSPs. Could help provide points for consideration, but need to include concerns from applicants and others.

ACTION - collect benefits, disadvantages from these meetings and GDD Summit. May already be a part of deliberations Google Doc, but if not, can be added there.

2. Applicant Support

Christa - AM Global Report – Confusion, dense, not accessible, not enough information, limited categories for applying, concerns about total cost for running a registry, infrastructure, lack of outreach, lack of traditional media outreach. Consult slides for fuller information. Only 3 applied and only 1 applicant passed the criteria (.Kids). There was also support beyond financial – consultants that would provide expertise.

Michael – Good to look at criteria, process, what ASP really is. More background information would be good. Identify distinct issues.

Avri - Previously called Joint Applicant Support, went to the ICANN Board, became Applicant Support. Highly complicated, scored evaluation akin to CPE. Issues - late in the process, challenging questions/criteria, still required outlay of money ($47k), minimal outreach done. Non material assistance also provided, separately (pro bono). Penalty if not passed (cancellation). ALAC research - registry industry (registrars and ccTLDs) ground was not properly laid well in advance (e.g., years in advance).

Christa – Community-based project, underserved languages, NGOs, not-for profit, local entrepreneur, etc. Each category has points. Social benefit, financial need, financial capability (ability to continue registry as going concern). Anything that should be included or added for future rounds? What benefits were extended beyond just application (e.g., first year)

Sara - Pros and cons for this program? Primarily resellers in the underserved regions, maybe lack registry industry infrastructure.

Michael - Behind support for economically disadvantaged applicants. Need better outreach, more than just economic support, review the criteria – it’s not just based on region, process too complicated (process itself is not supportive itself). Benefit to brands?

Christa – Applying a string to your company, not just a .brand. Recommend reviewing AM Global Report

Jeff - CCT-RT surveys -  should check their work (the AM Global Report is actually the report mentioned by Jeff). Get thoughts from those who developed ASP. Good topic for ICANN57 since input from GAC/ALAC/etc. would be useful? Should applicants who do not pass AS criteria be automatically failed?

Avri - Part of JAS group, initially. Arguments around auto cancellation -> if you need the money, why would you move forward at full price? Could apply for additional funding in the meantime. Developing economy companies - population of possible registrants could be smaller.

Christa - AM Global report focused on universal acceptance, developing economies – how do you target them in the most effective way?

Sara - Does it make sense to integrate into capacity building efforts? Help drive the development of the criteria.

Donna - IDN launch - registrars didn't support Arabic. Not much interest at the time in second-level Arabic domains. Need to help evaluate long-term viability/sustainability of TLD.

ACTION - seek JAS alumni to discuss

Steven Chan

Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

steve.chan at icann.org

direct: +1.310.301.3886

mobile: +1.310.339.4410

tel: +1.310.301.5800

fax: +1.310.823.8649

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

http://gnso.icann.org/en/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20161006/015c8c8f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20161006/015c8c8f/smime-0001.p7s>