<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=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailOriginalBody">Dear Work Track members,<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Please see below the notes from the meeting today. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript.</i> See the chat transcript and recording at: </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>https://community.icann.org/x/VAtyB</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>See the referenced document at: </span><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84tmg/"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84tmg/</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b><span style='color:black'>Notes/Action Items from Work Track 1 Sub Team Meeting </span>06 February<span style='color:black'> 2018:</span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b><span style='color:black'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1. SOI Updates: No Updates.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>2. Review of potential recommendations for Accreditation Programs (RSP Program) (4.2.8)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>See the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1guiX3L0FQAd7ZpwYIJI4FdY3pv09u0EnHMAark84tmg/, page 19<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Considered the policy question: was the repetitive, resource intentive technical evaluation and pre-delegation testing an interpretation of the rules -- a form of application rather than the fault with the rules themselves?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- General Agreements: More detail will be needed in this section.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Footnote on accreditation - why we moved away from this term in favor of RSP Pre-Approval.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Pre-approval process: Said it would be largely consistent with pre-delegation testing, and only do that testing once.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Add the areas where we don't have agreement, i.e., intent was to say that whatever testing we apply in the next round should be those requirements that are tested and evaluated as part of this pre-approval process.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Discussion about grandfathering, but don't think we have agreement on that approach. Describe the concept.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- How does pre-approval work when you have one registry service provider with multiple applicants and multiple schedule A filing -- do they go through multiple pre-delegation testing. Good to get public input on this.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Could be registries that have been pre-approved for a set of services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Beside pre-approval, there should be some requirement for monitoring or statistical process control before registries reach an SLA, and a rapid response to threats.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- There might be some assurances to registry operators when the want to transition from one back-end provider they goes smoothly, that there is a process in place where the losing RSP participates in the process.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- One service RSPs could be required to provide is EBERO.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- If an RSP has shown experience and meets SLA they should be given the presumption that they are capable of provide the service.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- If there are new requirements in the next round there may be a need for approval.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jim Prendergast: Im still not clear what the difference between accrediation and pre-approval are. An RSP still submits to testing by ICANN (or their designated 3rd party) in exchange for a designation (certified or pre-approved) How are they different? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: Everyone felt that the terms accreditation implied signing up to a separate agreement<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kurt Pritz: I dont like this footnote: “In the original charter, the term ”accreditation” was used as opposed to pre-approval. However, for the reasons discussed in the discussion section below, the terms “Accreditation” or “certification” were considered to be too politically charged and to many implied a number of elements which were unintended. After considerable debate, the terms “RSP Pre-Approval” or “RSP Program” were deemed less incendiary“ We should not turn away from an accreditation program for political reasons or because it is incendiary. We should state sound business / technical reasons for going away from accreditation and toward something else. Use of "political" and "incendiary" make s our reasoning sound less than sound. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: This does not envision a new agreement<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jim Prendergast: so the difference is a contract with ICANN?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: @Kurt - I agree we should give other reasons. It was one of the things I wanted to add to the General Agreements section<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: Namely what the term accreditation implies (an agreement)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Vanda Scartezini: Kurt, I beleive you right<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kurt Pritz: Stop reading - just stick it in the record<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jim Prendergast: not everyone is in adobe<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Christa Taylor: There was concern on the term 'accreditation' due to the implied certification/implications and the legalities around the diff parties <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): lengthy discussion on the nomenclature indeed<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jonathan Robinson: Agree with Jeff. We discussed this extensively<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jonathan Robinson: @Jeff. That is an interesting point. Will there be added or different technical requirements? If so, these may reflect real-world experience from the current 2012 round<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: @Jonathan - I dont know<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Donna Austin, Neustar: I agree, that we have not reached any agreement on grandfathering.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jonathan Robinson: Not a question per se. More a recognition of the question to be determined.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: I am just accounting for the possibility that there may be<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: That's why I dont want to just use the 2012 round as the base<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: @Jim - That is a great question to solicit public input on<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: in the initial report<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jim Prendergast: I dont have ideas - thats sort of why I asked the question<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: @Jim - Neither do I (Thats why I punted back to you) :)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Phil Buckingham: a technical audit each year going forward ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: I will note that the RySG has a document that has been going around but because it has not been approved by the SG it has not been submitted here yet. But some registries have made the point that if there are SLA breaches that those may be used against the pre-approval process. Again that is NOT a position of the SG, but an idea that was floated<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jonathan Robinson: @Kurt. Current experience does appear to show that ongoing monitoring is important<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: @Kurt - Interesting - A pre-approved provider must agree to be an EBERO for any TLD that it supports<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): if the RO fails, TLD goes to an EBERO <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Ken Stubbs - Afilias: yes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and I am not sure there is a process for EBERO to be non-operational<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kurt Pritz: If RO fails, the RSP is the EBERO<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>3. Review of potential recommendations for Support for Applicants from Developing Countries (4.2.14): Working Group members should review the document and provide feedback on the mailing list.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>