[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] Recording, Attendance & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue call on Tuesday, 11 April 2017
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Tue Apr 11 21:28:17 UTC 2017
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, 11 April
2017 at 20:00 UTC.
Adobe Connect Recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p2sbco0i6ib/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=436763efcaabf56f
d0227f108d44d3c705d81ed2dd669eac5ee8f7b29a7d3189>
https://participate.icann.org/p2sbco0i6ib/
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
** 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>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
Agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/_bDRAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/_bDRAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 11 April 2017
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team -
Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue on Tuesday, 11 April 2017
at 20:00 UTC
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-
5FbDRAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
-5FbDRAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSF
pCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=I5Bnfz4eCTwQIZg0cmhHrPnjsMOBgW56GDRTDUa6
VYs&s=CKFrLDO4Z-gpbMKhYP32mEYbFHmfgBc369GCb9AkPX0&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=I5Bnfz4eCTwQIZg0cmhHrPnjsMOBgW56GDRTDUa6VYs&s=CK
FrLDO4Z-gpbMKhYP32mEYbFHmfgBc369GCb9AkPX0&e=
Vanda Scartezini:hi everyone
Christa Taylor:Hello Vanda
Vanda Scartezini:listen mode since I am in a road with traffic and high
noise
Terri Agnew:thank you for this information Vanda
Emily Barabas:we can advance the slides
Donna Austin, Neustar:Is the audio choppy or is it just me?
Steve Chan:@Donna, I'm on phone and it's clear for me.
Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Steve, must just be me.
Terri Agnew:@Donna, if needed I can always dial out on the telephone.
Terri Agnew:sometimes rejoining on the adobe connect using a differernt
browser helps as well
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Terri, that's what you told me last night :-)
Christa Taylor:can you hear me?
Julie Hedlund:@Christa: We can't hear you.
Christa Taylor:one sec
Christa Taylor:one sec
Christa Taylor:can you let me know
Christa Taylor:can you let me in the room
Terri Agnew:@Christa , we are still unable to hear you
Terri Agnew:We are not seeing you join on a second connection via adobe
connect
Terri Agnew:@Christa, second Adobe Connect has joined for you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yeah!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Darn gremlins
Alan Greenberg:Sorry, that was me. Forgot to mute.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Steve that needs clarification
Jim Prendergast:ill call in
Vanda Scartezini:last year we did a survey in LAC region and price was not
the problem justifying interested organization did not enter into the
process. lack of information was the main issue
Ashley Roberts:May I suggest an alternate model: instead of spreading the
application cost across different rounds, how about spreading it across the
annual registry operator fees? So you could have a lower application fee,
offset against slightly higher annual fees. It gets over the difficulty of
predicting timing of further rounds.
Terri Agnew:@Jim, if assistance is needed dialing in, please let me know
Donna Austin, Neustar:The cost recovery is really difficult because there
are too many unknown variables. If we knew the costs associated with
developing systems and evaluating applications and how many applicants, it
would be an easier proposition.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes @Avri the differential fees discussion is not
yet finish at all... as seen in other WG's
Jim Prendergast:im dialed in
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that's my assumption @Alan
Vanda Scartezini: share cost as Ashley suggested looks interesting in my
view
avri doria:in a cyclical application period, there will be steady state
costs and it may be challenging to budget just per single application cycle.
I also assume the there would be efficinecies in terms of process that would
drive costs down over time.
Alexander Schubert:Lets put it this way: There needs to be a substential
"hurdle" to apply for a new gTLD. Otherwise we will have hobby gTLD makers
entering the arena - without any intend and ability to actually really
operate their TLD. A financial hurdle is the easiest to create!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):good question re staffing / re staffing
Jim Prendergast:Im also in agreement wth CLO that cost+ is not the way to
go.
Jim Prendergast:And agree with Alexander - there need to be some financial
barrier here to demonstarte financlial wherwithal.
avri doria:are we suggesting high costs to keep people out?
Jim Prendergast:Good point donna
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes indeed we should @Donna
Alexander Schubert:If the costs are low we need another hurdle: Say some
proof that the applicant WILL manage their TLD and know what they walk into.
avri doria:I can just imagine the press that would great a price meant to
keep people out of the market.
Alexander Schubert:I agree Avri.
Alexander Schubert:But I can tell you Domainers all over the world are
already licking their fingers - they think they spend US $200k and then lean
back and cash in.... "Hobby-TLDlers"
Jim Prendergast:the $185 was just the beginning of the costs associated
with TLD ownership.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agreed
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jim, but some paid much more than $185k for the
TLD, so how do we factor that into the value of a TLD.
Kurt Pritz:This is a pretty darned complex economics question. What is the
effect of application cost on demand? What is the effect of application cost
on developing area applications? What is the effect on gaming, I.e., how
many applicants will enter the field to profit on private auctions? How will
low cost increase the likelihood of applications that don't have the
financial wherewithal to sustain a viable registry? How will increased
demand increase the number of contention sets? Different types of
applications multiplies the complexity. I don't see how anyone here can
answer this question. One approach (that we very well likely to hate) is to
get a competent economics analysis of these issues. I don't think taking the
time would interfere with a 2019 launch date. It would have to be carefully
crafted and sophisticated
Jim Prendergast:@Donna - thats the market determining value, not ICANN.
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Alexander, i think the financial questions and the
COI were intended to understand the applicants ability to manage the TLD
into the longer term.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I am ok with that
Steve Coates:Hard to discuss a ceiling without discussing a floor.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup
Jim Prendergast:ICANN cant go into debt on this so no celing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup
Vanda Scartezini:I agree with Jim about no celing
avri doria:personally (not as WG co-chair) I am uncomfortable with some of
the assumption behind a floor.
Jim Prendergast:it might help
avri doria:i think it is a good idea to do so
Christa Taylor 2:It was sent with the agenda in case it helps in viewing
the document
Vanda Scartezini:back end list of certified companies was one of demands
in our survey in LAC region
Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:Could the PDF docs be made downloadable, please?
Thanks in advance.
Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:ah, ok.
Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks.
Emily Barabas:The slides are also available on the wiki here:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis
play_NGSPP_4.2.8-2BAccreditation-2BPrograms
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di
splay_NGSPP_4.2.8-2BAccreditation-2BPrograms&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mS
VzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=I5Bn
fz4eCTwQIZg0cmhHrPnjsMOBgW56GDRTDUa6VYs&s=ZhXiqecCREatHc2UvDIUADfUHxp9tSIzlt
sfBjg7P0Y&e>
&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=I5Bnfz4eCTwQIZg0cmhHrPnjsMOBgW56GDRTDUa6VYs&s=Zh
XiqecCREatHc2UvDIUADfUHxp9tSIzltsfBjg7P0Y&e=
Steve Coates:Apologies - I agree with Avri's point on the floor. I think
there need to be fundamentals behind a floor that do not take into account
competitive hurdles (e.g. cost recovery, ensuring financial viability).
Steve Chan:I would note that Ashley Roberts circulated a summary of
Donna's proposed options. Provided Donna agrees with that summation, that
might serve as a good high level reminder of what the three
options/proposals are.
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Steve, no objection
Laura Watkins:I'm not sure I follow the logic of removing PDT. The RSP
offering could differ depending on the type of TLD and TLD can be actually
seen to reduce costs as it removes the obligation for the RSP to do their
own testing and incur costs for that. If one of the reasons that we're
citing for having a fee level is to prevent failure - how can we justify
delegation without testing? The Pre-certified providers concerns me that it
creates tiers of RSPs and could stiffle compettion and ionnovation in the
market.
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Laura, regardless of the type of TLD, the PDT was
always the same.
Laura Watkins:I appreciate it was the same - I know our tech team actually
found it quite useful!
Samantha Demetriou:My understanding is that PDT also didn't account for
scalability, which could be an important factor if a single provider is
running the back-end for large numbers of TLDs
Donna Austin, Neustar:@Laura, ours didn't after they'd been through it
many, many times.
Donna Austin, Neustar:that's correct Sam.
Kurt Pritz:One problem that we are trying to solve is to ensure that
proven providers continue to be successful. An RSP program might also
include forward looking criteria in addition to past looking. Forward
looking requirements for RSPs might include statistical process controls to
determine whether an RSP is degrading in performance before they fall
outside the performance limits. Another requirement might be that there be a
threat identification process so that new security threats are identified as
they arise and RSPs would be obligated to act in some ways.
Jim Prendergast:What happens and brand X selects an ICANN accredited RSP
and there is a technical failure that results in a breach. Who does Brand X
pursue? the RSP, ICANN? IS ICANN ready and wll to shoulder the
burden/liabilty that comes with accreditng RSPs?
Jim Prendergast:We already have a situtation where RSPs are failing an
ICANN is coachng them back into compliance
Samantha Demetriou:Thanks for confirming, Donna. So in that case, if
applicants go with a "proven provider," then instead of just answering
questions and going through a redundant PDT process, testing could focus on
whether the RSP can scale appropriately - which in theory would be ensuring
ongoing stability rather than just checking the box
Samantha Demetriou:Basically, all of this is to say that I think having an
RSP program presents an opportunity to improve the testing process
Kurt Pritz:@ Jim: isn't that a reason that there be a direct relationship
between ICANN and the RSP rather than creating stability through a thrid
party?
Jim Prendergast:Sam - I think there are ways to solve testing program
issues without going down the accrediation path
Ashley Roberts:JIm, Brand X would take it up with their RSP, as current
2012 registries would. They would have a contracual relationship with SLAs
with the RSP.
Laura Watkins:Is a new process needed for this? Could it be covered by
the current material sub-contracting agreement fpr example?
Samantha Demetriou:@Jim, sure, I can see that. Just putting a thought out
there about a potential added benefit if such a program was put in place.
Jim Prendergast:Ashley - But if ICANN accredits someone - there comes
comes that ICANN seal of approval. And if ICANN approved them, and that was
the basis of my decision to go with RSP1 over RSP 2 - Im not going to be
happy
Laura Watkins:+1 Jim
Ashley Roberts:Jim, I don't think this proposal is talking about
"accreditation" as such. I view is essentially doing exactly what was done
in the 2012 round - ICANN is simply saying that an RSP meets the technial
requirements set out in the AGB. The only difference between this proposal
and the 2012 evaluations is that in this case ICANN only perform the
evaluation and PDT once per RSP, rather than repeating the process over and
over.
Kurt Pritz:I remember in the first round discussion that Chuck from
Verisign came to the microphone and said that the technical criteria for a
new TLD should be stringent. The Guidebook questions were written with that
in mind. Now the marketplace has markedly changed where there are a few RSPs
that are separated from direct obligation to the ICANN community. Wouldn't a
direct relationship between ICANN and RSPs (who control critical Internet
infrastructure) comply with ICANN's missions?
Jim Prendergast:So thats a helpful clarificaitonDonna - this is not an
accrediation program - just problem solving the testing issues.\
Terri Agnew:Next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 1 -
Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue will take place on Tuesday, 25 April
2017 at 3:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye for now then... thanks everyone good progress
today more to come of course
Vanda Scartezini:nice meeting tks to all good ideas.
Katrin Ohlmer, DOTZON:thanks & bye, everybody.
Vanda Scartezini:happy Easter and Pesach to everyone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170411/f63164aa/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance TRACK 1 11 April 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 334630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170411/f63164aa/attendanceTRACK111April2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Track1-11 April 2017.mp3
Type: audio/mpeg
Size: 7308748 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170411/f63164aa/Track1-11April2017-0001.mp3>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1/attachments/20170411/f63164aa/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1
mailing list