<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New";
panose-1:2 7 3 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:-webkit-standard;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Calibri;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:229195884;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-210626122 -543119210 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:7;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:-;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Dear All,
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 20 September.
<i>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</i>. The MP3 recording is available at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Kind regards,</span><span style="font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Notes and Action Items: 20 September 2016 - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">1. Welcome<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">2. SOIs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">3. Work Plan Schedule/Subject Area and 4. Prioritization (continued)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Sara did a rough first pass at ordering categories and setting timeline, welcomes input (attached).</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Current schedule: Alternate Tuesdays, rotating 3:00 UTC, 15:00 UTC, 20:00 UTC.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Sara created a working document for the group, available in Google docs to help guide discussion. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">[Action Item: WG members are encouraged to add comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit?usp=sharing]</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Topics/Questions for Work Track 1 -- no initial feedback provided.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- The document originally had more background information. It is now more concise. Background information on each topic is available in the wiki.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Avri Doria: this is a good approximation for the topics for us to work on.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">5. Accreditation Discussion (continued)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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?
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Paul McGrady: Is this beneficial to backend providers or just applicants?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Sara Bockey: Question 4 asks whether we should differentiate between new and existing providers who have already been through this process.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Avri Doria: Wouldn't we need to consider the need for a periodic re-check?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Kurt Pritz: Correct, we are trying to improve resiliency but not guarantee it.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Laura Watkins: There are some concerns with the term “accredited,” as it has other connotations. Perhaps there is another more neutral term.
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Kurt Pritz: Agrees that writing the criteria is an implementation issue. Vanda agrees, as well.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Cheryl Landon-Orr: Do we need an action item to summarize issues for sub team 4?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Donna Austin: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Jeff Neuman: He does not believe that it is the case with the certification process carefully designed.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Laura Watkins: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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? </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Sara Bockey: How would this program be funded?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Jeff Neuman: He believes it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">- 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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">- Vanda: Agrees with Avri on costs.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">- Katrin Ohlmer 2: The cost should be fixed. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- Cheryl Langdon-Orr: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Fixed costs are ok where they are agreed and predictable.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- 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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">[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]</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Jeff Neuman: We have had conversations about pros/cons/issues in the full group. Kurt also put out a paper on pros/cons. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Kurt Pritz:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> 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; </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">6. Application Support (if time permits)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- This topic was not discussed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">7. AOB<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">- none</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black"><gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday 20 September 2016 at 23:38<br>
<b>To: </b>"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1@icann.org><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1] recording, Attendance & AC Chat for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Dear All,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Please</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> 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.</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black"><a href="http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3"><span style="font-family:Calibri"><br>
</span></a></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov" target="_blank"><span style="color:purple">http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar</span></a> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Mailing list archives: <span style="background:white"><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Wiki page: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D"><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw">https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Thank you.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Kind regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Terri
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">-------------------------------</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black">Adobe Connect chat transcript
</span></u></b><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">for 20 September 2016</span></u></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:-webkit-standard;color:black"> </span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/rxWsAw">
https://community.icann.org/x/rxWsAw</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Vanda:hi all !!!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Vanda:yes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Laura Watkins:Hi. I sent apologies but have been able to join after all.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Terri Agnew:@Sara, your audio seems fine <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Terri Agnew:@Laura, thank you, apology has been removed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Laura Watkins:Thanks @Terri - sorry<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Terri Agnew:@Laura, happy it worked out you could join<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll and zoom in the center pod<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Avri Doria:i think it is a good new approximation for the ST to work from.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Vanda:from the sudy we had in this region service providers list would be encouraging for potential applicants here<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Paul McGrady:HI everyone. Sorry to be late.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Emily Barabas:Link to Google Doc: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit?usp=sharing</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Terri Agnew:Please remember to mute when not speaking<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Emily Barabas:Everyone can now scroll<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Emily Barabas:and zoon<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Emily Barabas:zoom<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Paul:@Jeff, is this beneficial to backend providers too or just applicants?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Jeff<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Paul:@Jeff, thanks! A rare win/win.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Katrin Ohlmer 2:+1 Jeff! That has been a big issue in the prevoious round<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Phil Buckingham:+1 Katrin <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Phil Buckingham: Periodic check in the form of an "audit " once a year
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Avri Doria:up and running with no comlaints/problems. agree that at time 0, all should go through the first testing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Paul:@Jeff, Seems fair. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Terri Agnew:@Laura, we are unable to hear you, you are unmuted on the AC. Please check mute on your side<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Donna Austin, Neustar:Apologies for being late. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree again Jeff<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Donna Austin, Neustar:There may be more than one solution to the problems we believe accreditation or certification would solve.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Vanda:agree Kurt<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Paul:@Kurt - good advice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Vanda:yes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Donna Austin, Neustar:sorry Avri<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):WP means Work Plan <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):just don't want thngs to slip through the cracks NOR have this group do more thna needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Paul:AI = Action Item WP= Work Plan CLO = Alfonso Bonilla Aragón International Airport :)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Yasmin Omer - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Jeff<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Paul:Thanks Jeff.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Jeff Neuman:@Donna - I dont believe that with a certification process carefully designed, no<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Sara, I'll review the earlier part of the call.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Paul:All, I have to switch to phone only. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Jeff Neuman:@Paul - we will miss you witty written banter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Jeff Neuman:I believe it should be strictly cost recovery funded by the RSPs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Katrin Ohlmer 2:@ Jeff: I agree<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Avri Doria:cost recorvery is dangerous since that leaves so many costs up to interpretations<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Katrin Ohlmer 2:@Avri: The cost should be fixed <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):FIXED COSTS IS OK where they are agreed and redictable
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Predictable <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Phil Buckingham:Yes -out of the auction proceeds or Fixed price contract with an independant third party
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Vanda:nice music around...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Donna Austin, Neustar:You rapping away there Jeff<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Avri Doria:i did for a few seconds<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Terri Agnew:it ended so quickly I was unable to find which line it was coming from<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cecilia Smith:It was DEFINITELY Jeff's music...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Vanda:agree with Avri about costs..<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Emily Barabas:Google doc: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KTHsQSjMSmutsY2WMmQG1DNsNp6cX7k4oQEwKveU338/edit?usp=sharing</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Jeff Neuman:No problem Donna. Just want to make sure your thoughts and comments are brought out<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Avri Doria:yes, everybody, lets not wait for the next call to do mmore work on this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Avri Doria:thank you good call<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Phil Buckingham:+ 1 Donna - identify the problem(s) first
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Emily Barabas:Next meeting: Tuesday 4 October at 3:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> 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;
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Kurt Pritz:(4) Avri's point that the capacity for providing back end services is not tested<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Avri Doria:i think there may be enough in the previous docs for synthesis of the questions asked.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thx Sara and everyone... good call ... talk again soon... bye for now<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Avri Doria:yes safe to end. thanks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Jeff Neuman:The other item I would like to get are the pros and cons identified by the Contracted Parties at the GDD Summitt<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Katrin Ohlmer 2:thank you everyone<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Laura Watkins:Thanks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Kurt Pritz:good job Sara<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Vanda:buy all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Jeff Neuman:Can we please track those down. I know we did those on flip charts at the GDD Summit<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Steve Chan:@Jeff, yes, i can get those from GDD staff<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Steve Chan:or, i will try that is<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>