[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] - GDD Response to EBERO questions

[Rubens Kuhl]

Of notice is that ICANN is still not doing EPP checks in registries; they are only verifying DNS and WHOIS, basically. Their only visibility into SRS failures that do not compromise WHOIS is registrar complaints, and I believe those are not counted as SLA failures. So the actual number of events can be higher. 


Rubens






> On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:07 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>> wrote:
> 
> Dear WT2 Members,
>  
> On the 19 January 2017 meeting of this Work Track, WT2 discussed Registrant Protections and in particular, the EBERO. During the course of the meeting, several questions were identified that the WT wanted to put forth to the GDD:
>  
> Ask ICANN 1) has the Emergency Threshold been breached 2) has EBERO been triggered? 3) If someone went above the threshold and EBERO wasn't used, then why?
>  
> Below, please see the response from GDD:
>  
> “Section 6 of Specification 10 of the Registry Agreement for new gTLDs provides emergency thresholds for the 5 critical registry functions. Per the Registry Agreement, reaching any one of these thresholds could trigger an EBERO event.
> 
> ICANN monitors registries’ performance of these critical registry functions, and regularly engages with Registry Operators and Registry Service Providers when service outages occur. Not all services outages reach emergency thresholds. If emergency thresholds are reached, ICANN evaluates each individual case and make decisions regarding whether to trigger an EBERO event based on the unique circumstances.
> 
> Since the launch of the New gTLD program, an SLA has reached or exceeded the emergency threshold 27 times. However, no EBERO events have been declared to date. In each of these 27 cases, ICANN technical teams were already working with the registry before the threshold was reached. In many of the cases, the TLD had no registrations. In the cases in which there were registrations, ICANN considered the EBERO option. However, ICANN determined that it would have less of a security and stability impact to assist the RSP through resolution rather than activating an EBERO event.”
>  
> Hopefully this response adequately addresses your questions. If you have any additional questions or require clarifications, please do not hesitate to let the policy staff support know and we will be sure to liaise with our GDD colleagues.
>  
> Best,
> Steve
>  
>  
>                 
>  
> Steven Chan
> 
> Sr. Policy Manager
> 
> 
>  
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
> 
> steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
> mobile: +1.310.339.4410
> office tel: +1.310.301.5800
> office fax: +1.310.823.8649
>  
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
>  
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO>
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>_______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170217/e2d2b51d/attachment-0001.html>