[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing

[Jeff Neuman]

Rubens,

If we had a Registry Services Provider pre-approval process, how would that process interact with the policy you have stated below?

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com 
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw


-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 8:32 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing


Hi All.

For those on our call, you know we issued our first consensus call, based on an sensation of consensus on this during the full WG F2F meeting in Hyderabad. No consensus calls are final since they can be changed if new information arises or when it goes to the full WG, but we would like those to be strong guidances for other WTs and the full WG of where are we headed to. 

Consensus calls will go for at least two readings; considering the non-optimal attendance we will refrain from issuing the 2nd reading for this item for a while so further discussion can arise. 

The idea is to change one specific recommendation from the original policy, which was Recommendation 7:
“Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out. “

Possible changed language:
“Applicants must be able demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out, but will only be required to do so at contract-signing time, after passing other criteria and/or approvals and prevailing in contention set(s), if any.”			

Rationale: 
In the 2012-rounds applicants were required to contract, or internally develop, technical capability prior to applying. This was a burden for applicants that were required to pay a one-time or recurring fee to get access to such technical capability and in most cases made applicants stick to their originally contracted back-end provider due to time-to-market concerns. 2012-round showed that technical capabilities are somewhat easily contracted in the market for affordable prices. 

What changed from 2007 that supports the change:
It was not foreseen that the registry service provider market would achieve the level of maturity and commoditization that is now seen; only a small percentage (that we can gather and publish in the final version) of applicants used their own internal back-end infrastructure. 
Portfolio applicants were not really thought of. 

Possible alternatives:
- Keeping the original recommendation as it was
- Moving the technical evaluation to some other point in the application lifecycle


For discussion, comments, opposition... I will note that a rough consensus doesn't require unanimity, but even a single opposition with a compelling rationale can change a consensus call, so please don't take popularity of lack of thereof as criteria. We want to achieve the best possible result in adding the combined expertise of the group, which includes listening to every opinion. 


Best,
Rubens








_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4