[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Notes and Action Items for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
Emily Barabas
emily.barabas at icann.org
Wed Sep 21 11:40:08 UTC 2016
Dear All,
Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 September. 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 recording. The MP3 recording is available at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar.
Kind regards,
Emily
Notes and Action Items: 20 September 2016 - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
1. Welcome
2. SOIs
3. Work Plan Schedule/Subject Area and 4. Prioritization (continued)
- Sara did a rough first pass at ordering categories and setting timeline, welcomes input (attached).
- Current schedule: Alternate Tuesdays, rotating 3:00 UTC, 15:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC.
- Sub team leads added timeline for community feedback to the overall timeline. The co-chairs have suggested providing 1-2 questions for CC2 or the group can send out its own request for community feedback.
- Sara created a working document for the group, available in Google docs to help guide discussion.
[Action Item: WG members are encouraged to add comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit?usp=sharing]
- Topics/Questions for Work Track 1 -- no initial feedback provided.
- The document originally had more background information. It is now more concise. Background information on each topic is available in the wiki.
- Avri Doria: this is a good approximation for the topics for us to work on.
5. Accreditation Discussion (continued)
- Sara Bockey: Task for today for the group: nail down terminology around accreditation program -- what are we looking to approve or certify them to do?
- Paul McGrady: Primary goal if we decide to go forward with it - streamline the process, cut down number of people ICANN needs to review an application, drive down costs, increase accessibility of the marketplace for more businesses and organizations, including those unable to apply in the first round due to costs.
- Jeff Neuman: We would be certifying that the provider meets or exceeds the technical requirements for the application process, so that applicants know there is a pool of providers that meet these criteria. We still need to determine those requirements.
- Paul McGrady: Is this beneficial to backend providers or just applicants?
- Jeff: It’s good for backend providers, too. They have certainty going in that they meet or exceed ICANN's requirements and can demonstrate this to applicants. Cheryl Langdon-Orr agrees.
- Sara Bockey: Question 4 asks whether we should differentiate between new and existing providers who have already been through this process.
- Jeff Neuman: Initially, he would require all backend providers to go through testing. He would not create criteria that go beyond those in the last applicant guidebook. It would be fair for everyone to go through the process at least once. Presumably it would be easy for existing providers to demonstrate they meet or exceed requirements.
- Avri Doria: Wouldn't we need to consider the need for a periodic re-check?
- Jeff Neuman: If this group determines that periodic checks are necessary, then yes. But maybe the periodic check can be satisfied by the fact that they are up and running, almost as more of an audit. Personal view: existing providers should not be treated differently from new providers.
- Kurt Pritz: The accreditation program could be different than the requirements in the applicant guidebook. The accreditation program could demonstrate not only that the provider can operate the registry in accordance with technical requirements, but could also be a guarantee towards resiliency and stability. The criteria could include multiples of capacity to resist DDoS attacks and could address the latest threat matrices. These requirements might change over time, so the providers would need to prove that they are up to date.
- Jeff Neuman: He likes what Kurt said. It would be good for the industry to have a check. But the fear is that ICANN is acting as a guarantor rather than certifying that providers meet minimum requirements. There is a risk of exposing ICANN to liability. If there's a way to do it that is voluntary or avoids having ICANN vouch for the providers’ capabilities, it’s a great idea. Maybe a third party could play a part in establishing the higher standard, or maybe this is left to the market.
- Kurt Pritz: Correct, we are trying to improve resiliency but not guarantee it.
- Laura Watkins: There are some concerns with the term “accredited,” as it has other connotations. Perhaps there is another more neutral term.
- Jeff Neuman: Agrees that this term has raised concerns on the mailing list, as it implies that you have a legal agreement with ICANN. He prefers to move away from this term and prefers to say that ICANN is certifying that the provider meets or exceeds requirements. Does the term "certify" also have connotations that may raise concerns? Cheryl Langdon-Orr agrees with Jeff.
- Sara Bockey: It sounds like we are talking about something between certification and accreditation. Certification is often a program to test and evaluate and accreditation is a formal declaration by a third party that the provider meets the standards. But what are the criteria we think are most important and who would perform the certification/accreditation?
- Jeff Neuman: We don’t need to resolve criteria now. One option is to make a policy recommendation that it meets or exceeds requirements, and then kick it out to an implementation group or get input from WT4. WT4 could have some recommendations regarding criteria. We do not need to agree upon the specific criteria within this group. We can talk about the processes and procedures as appropriate.
- Donna Austin: This is why we wanted to understand the problems we were trying to solve before we started talking about the solution. There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve.
- Kurt Pritz: Agrees that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Vanda agrees, as well.
- Avri Doria: There may also be criteria that we would want to add regarding the capability to support multiple applicants. That might be a criterion we would want to add beyond basic pre-testing.
- Donna Austin: ICANN identified that the ability to test for multiple registry operators was a fail in the first round and something that should be remedied. For those RSPs that have been operating ROs from the first round they have been doing so in accordance with the requirements of the RA after going through PDT. There may be ways to adjust PDT to test for x number of registry operations and domains under management.
- Jeff Neuman: It would be possible to ask questions on capacity and scalability. There may be ways to make educated predictions based on responses to written questions. But it is hard to directly test that.
- Cheryl Landon-Orr: Do we need an action item to summarize issues for sub team 4?
- Jeff Neuman: If this sub team makes a recommendation on this issue, it would go to the full group and then be referred to sub team 4. No immediate action item needed now.
- Yasmin Omer: Has this group made a distinction between 1) a RSP demonstrating its ability to manage the critical registry functions (effectively what the application process was) and 2) the RSPs ability to actually manage the critical registry functions (what Pre-Delegation Testing was). Is the scope of this group limited to point 1 or does it extend to point 2?
- Jeff Neuman: At this point, the only recommendation we have agreed upon is #1 in Yasmin's comment, but #1 could include pre-delegation testing. Jeff wouldn't want to go much further, as #2 might create liability for ICANN.
- Paul McGrady: Is there a lesson to be learned from academia or health care regarding whether accreditation by a third party results in liability for the third party in the event that the accredited party does not end up being “up to snuff?” Could we dig around in some of these spaces?
- Jeff Neuman: The first thing that comes to mind is an auditor. An auditor will certify that you’re able to do what you said you could do, but not that what you can do meets a certain standard. They do this for same reason related to liability. Someone can do this research if they want.
- Donna Austin: As the entity responsible for security and stability of the Internet, isn't ICANN going to be liable if a registry fails or compromises SSR in some way?
- Jeff Neuman: He does not believe that it is the case with the certification process carefully designed.
- Laura Watkins: When we refer to the process of "Accreditation" are we inventing a new process for future rounds? Or was this something that took place as part of pre-delegation testing last time and the discussion is just about moving it to earlier in the process in the future?
- Jeff Neuman: The question gets to the heart of the criteria. We talked about this as a way to go through the process once instead of hundreds or thousands of time. It would be great to move the application process and pre-delegation testing process to being at the same point (to be required for approval). But we are not setting the criteria now. We first need to all agree on the policy.
- Sara Bockey: How would this program be funded?
- Jeff Neuman: He believes it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs.
- Donna Austin: This assumes one solution and I'm not sure this is a question we need to get into at this point. Katrin Ohlmer agrees.
- Jeff Neuman: If this is a program we agree on, this would be a voluntary program, on a cost recovery basis. We have to define what costs are included in cost recovery and make sure it doesn’t go beyond costs for administering the program itself.
- Avri Doria: Cost recovery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations. If we are going to say cost recovery, we have to be careful how we say it and specify what is included.
- Vanda: Agrees with Avri on costs.
- Katrin Ohlmer 2: The cost should be fixed.
- Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Fixed costs are ok where they are agreed and predictable.
- Jeff Neuman: Asked for clarification from Donna on the list regarding points raised in the chat. He wants to make sure that if they develop a proposal, everyone is behind it. Otherwise, it looks like the group is headed towards preliminary recommendations.
Steve Chan (Staff): Echoing Donna's comment, he suggests identifying and document the problem we are trying to solve and then come up with requirements.
[Action Item: Go back to notes about this topic in previous conversation including pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summit]
Jeff Neuman: We have had conversations about pros/cons/issues in the full group. Kurt also put out a paper on pros/cons.
Kurt Pritz: Here are some problems we are trying to solve: (1) the application process was clunky and repetitive w/o any benefit for the extra cost; (2) little in the existing PDT criteria serves stability and resiliency, i.e., capacity in excess of activity or addressing threats; (3) the process for R.O. switching backend providers in unpredictable;
6. Application Support (if time permits)
- This topic was not discussed
7. AOB
- none
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday 20 September 2016 at 23:38
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue
Dear All,
Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email and the AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue held on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC.
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3>
The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 September 2016
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call held on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 at 20:00 UTC.
Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/rxWsAw
Vanda:hi all !!!
Vanda:yes
Laura Watkins:Hi. I sent apologies but have been able to join after all.
Terri Agnew:@Sara, your audio seems fine
Terri Agnew:@Laura, thank you, apology has been removed
Laura Watkins:Thanks @Terri - sorry
Terri Agnew:@Laura, happy it worked out you could join
Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll and zoom in the center pod
Avri Doria:i think it is a good new approximation for the ST to work from.
Vanda:from the sudy we had in this region service providers list would be encouraging for potential applicants here
Paul McGrady:HI everyone. Sorry to be late.
Emily Barabas:Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit?usp=sharing
Terri Agnew:Please remember to mute when not speaking
Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll
Emily Barabas:and zoon
Emily Barabas:zoom
Paul:Wow, this document is beautiful. Thanks so much for all the hard work on this. It gives us a clear path forward for meaningful discussion.
Paul:@Jeff, is this beneficial to backend providers too or just applicants?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Jeff
Paul:@Jeff, thanks! A rare win/win.
Katrin Ohlmer 2:+1 Jeff! That has been a big issue in the prevoious round
Phil Buckingham:+1 Katrin
Phil Buckingham: Periodic check in the form of an "audit " once a year
Avri Doria:up and running with no comlaints/problems. agree that at time 0, all should go through the first testing.
Paul:@Jeff, Seems fair.
Terri Agnew:@Laura, we are unable to hear you, you are unmuted on the AC. Please check mute on your side
Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies for being late.
Kurt Pritz:@Jeff: correct. Setting criteria has to be done very carefully and I should not have used the word "guarantee." We are try to improve resiliency but not guarantee it.
Laura Watkins:Seems my mic is not working. I wanted to raise that there are some concerns with the term "accredited" as it has other connotations as Jeff has just mentioned. Perhaps there is another more neutral term that could be used?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree again Jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar:I'm sorry I don't have audio. This is why we wanted to understand the problems we were trying to solve before we started talking about the solution.
Donna Austin, Neustar:There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve.
Kurt Pritz:I agree that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Developing criteria in other arenas has been a highly contentious process where industry participants try to write criteria that are well-suited to their operation. The criteria writing should be led by a strong independent party.
Vanda:agree Kurt
Paul:@Kurt - good advice.
Vanda:yes.
Jeff Neuman:@Donna - If you listen to the beginning of the call, I went through how I believe this is a win-win situation from applicants and beck end providers
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Jeff I note the referal to WT4 here, but would aappreciate a short articulation of the 'issues as identified by this WT" perhaps framed as a few simple questions, for us in WT4 to list in our WP and ensure we effectively deal with... Perhaps an AI Sara?
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Avre - ICANN identified that the ability to test for multiple registry operators was a fail in the first round and something that should be remedied. For those RSPs that have been operating ROs from the first round they have been doing so in accordance with the requirements of the RA after going through PDT. There may be ways to adjust PDT to test for x number of registry operations and domains under management.
Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Apologies for joining this group late, has this group made a distinction between 1) a RSP demonstrating its ability to manage the critical registry functions (effectively what the application process was) and 2) the RSPs ability to actually manage the critical registry functions (what Pre-Delegation Testing was). Is the scope of this group limited to point 1 or does it extend to point 2?
Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry Avri
Laura Watkins:When we refer to the process of "Accreditation" are we inventing a new process for future rounds? Or was this something that took place as part of pre-delegation testing last time and the discussion is just about moving it to earlier in the process in the future?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WP means Work Plan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):No Not yet to work on BUT to ensure we do address the secifics of anaything from this WT to WT4
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):just don't want thngs to slip through the cracks NOR have this group do more thna needed
Paul:AI = Action Item WP= Work Plan CLO = Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport :)
Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar:As the entity responsible for security and stability of the Internet, isn't ICANN going to be liable if a registry fails or compromises SSR in some way?
Paul:Thanks Jeff.
Jeff Neuman:@Donna - I dont believe that with a certification process carefully designed, no
Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara, I'll review the earlier part of the call.
Paul:All, I have to switch to phone only.
Jeff Neuman:@Paul - we will miss you witty written banter
Jeff Neuman:I believe it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs
Donna Austin, Neustar:Sara, this assumes one solution and I'm not sure this is a question we need to get into at this point.
Katrin Ohlmer 2:@ Jeff: I agree
Avri Doria:cost recorvery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations
Katrin Ohlmer 2:@Avri: The cost should be fixed
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):FIXED COSTS IS OK where they are agreed and redictable
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Predictable
Phil Buckingham:Yes -out of the auction proceeds or Fixed price contract with an independant third party
Vanda:nice music around...
Donna Austin, Neustar:You rapping away there Jeff
Avri Doria:i did for a few seconds
Terri Agnew:it ended so quickly I was unable to find which line it was coming from
Cecilia Smith:It was DEFINITELY Jeff's music...
Vanda:agree with Avri about costs..
Donna Austin, Neustar:I will, noting that I am currently on vacation so it will not be timely, but it's not the first time I've requested that we start with identifying the problems before jumping to solutions.
Emily Barabas:Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit?usp=sharing
Jeff Neuman:No problem Donna. Just want to make sure your thoughts and comments are brought out
Avri Doria:yes, everybody, lets not wait for the next call to do mmore work on this.
Avri Doria:thank you good call
Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna - identify the problem(s) first
Emily Barabas:Next meeting: Tuesday 4 October at 3:00 UTC
Kurt Pritz:Here are some problems we are trying to solve: (1) the application process was clunky and repetitive w/o any benefit for the extra cost; (2) little in the existing PDT criteria serves stability and resiliency, i.e., capacity in excess of activity or addressing threats; (3) the process for R.O. switching backend providers in unpredictable;
Kurt Pritz:(4) Avri's point that the capacity for providing back end services is not tested
Avri Doria:i think there may be enough in the previous docs for synthesis of the questions asked.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Sara and everyone... good call ... talk again soon... bye for now
Avri Doria:yes safe to end. thanks
Jeff Neuman:The other item I would like to get are the pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summitt
Katrin Ohlmer 2:thank you everyone
Laura Watkins:Thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup
Kurt Pritz:good job Sara
Vanda:buy all
Jeff Neuman:Can we please track those down. I know we did those on flip charts at the GDD Summit
Steve Chan:@Jeff, yes, i can get those from GDD staff
Steve Chan:or, i will try that is
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20160921/a8885406/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WT1 Meeting 3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 211133 bytes
Desc: WT1 Meeting 3.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20160921/a8885406/WT1Meeting3-0001.pdf>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
mailing list