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

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at nic.br
Fri Dec 16 15:43:15 UTC 2016 

> Em 16 de dez de 2016, à(s) 12:27:000, Roger D Carney <rcarney at godaddy.com> escreveu:
> 
> Good Morning,
>  
> Just following along with a few of the questions/ideas Jeff raised.
>  
> Are we trying to create an application process that does not take technical considerations into account until the TLD has been basically “awarded” to a single applicant?

Yes for the RSP part of it. The considerations that would eventually factor into RSEP, RSTEP, Security & Stability etc. would still be either required or moved to after signing because of their own natures. 


>  
> I think that would create a situation where many applicants would not understand the technical expertise and/or true costs needed to run a registry until after contention sets have been resolved and they will get to that spot and say “oh that is too hard” or “oh that is too expensive.”

True costs are a matter of financial evaluation, so it's up to that evaluation to assess whether the technical needs, either with in-house deployment or outsourced to an RSP, will be adequately provisioned on a financial basis. Even in the 2012 round the financials for the critical registry functions, which are done by an RSP and the Data Escrow provider, were clearly separated from the whole financial model, which then accounted for other expenses like G&A, marketing etc. 


>  
> I think the technical questions and the discussions with the registry service providers are needed for Registry Operators to understand the true complexities and costs of running a TLD and realistically should be done prior to applying. And it seems like waiting to do this until after contention set resolution could be costly to the applicants and process.
> 

Actually, the cost on the ecosystem will be multiplied, as it has been, by requiring it to be done before. Every contention set of n members require n times the cost for doing it before, while all it would be required was actually a business proposal saying that running a TLD for an specific mission would cost X$, and that amount was the only required information to properly make financial projections. 


Rubens


>  
> Thanks
> Roger
>  
>  
> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 6:20 AM
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing
>  
>  
> On Dec 16, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> wrote:
>  
> The other question I have on the language is on the interaction with contention resolution (assuming there is one or more application windows or rounds).  With your change, in theory we could have a situation where a prevailing registry in contention resolution may not pass a technical evaluation.    Should there be a time limit on demonstrating its capabilities?   <>
>  
> It's already specified by ICANN that there is a time limit between being approved and signing a contract. It would fall within that time limit to either secure an approved RSP or get technical evaluation approval, or request an extension to ICANN to get such approval. 
>  
> 
> 
> If it is unable to demonstrate that, what do you do?  Can get kind of messy? 
>  
> That's why there was also a question in Hyderabad, reflected in the slides, of what should happen in the case, but people seemed not interested in discussing it. We also have some similar situations right now like applicants not passing background screening, failing to pay the auction bid or simply failing to send the signed agreement to ICANN. 
>  
> I prefer thinking what happens even in corner cases such as this, but in this case the existing mechanism of allowing some time to sign and possibly grant an extension to that seems enough to handle it. 
> 
> 
> Should we state that in the case of contention resolution it needs to be prior to the completion of such contention resolution?
>  
>  
> . The feedback in Hyderabad was the opposite of that: that only after contention resolution should the quest for technical capability begin, because it was only at that point that the applicant would be sure of having secured the TLD. 
> Otherwise, many applicants have to secure contracts while only one will become a registry. That's exactly the issue this is trying to address. 
>  
>  
>  
> Rubens
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 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 <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> @Jintlaw
>  
>  
> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>] 
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 10:47 AM
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Consensus Call 1: Technical Capability to be evaluated after application, before contract signing
>  
>  
> Jeff, 
>  
> It would speed-up the process to reach both milestones of contract signing and TLD delegation, since the technical infrastructure won't have to be evaluated and delegation readiness will already be known. 
> It will also allow applicants to choose a Registry Services Provider when they see fit; if they prefer selecting it before applying it would be their choice, if they prefer shopping for a provider after securing the TLD, they could too. It still keeps the freedom to use a completely new infrastructure and have it evaluated, a liberty that can be useful now that there is one open-source gTLD registry system available: http://domainincite.com/21147-google-could-shake-up-the-registry-market-with-new-open-source-nomulus-platform <http://domainincite.com/21147-google-could-shake-up-the-registry-market-with-new-open-source-nomulus-platform> .
>  
> (Previously, CoCCA had sources available but was not license-free to gTLD registries, only to ccTLD registries). 
>  
> But anticipating something from the implementation phase, I think it will make sense to have technical evaluation charged as a separate cost item for applicants, in order to benefit most of the applicants with the cost reduction potential of the RSP program. But that's a definition not in the table for now, just a side note for us to get back within the IRT for this policy. 
>  
>  
> Rubens
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Dec 16, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> wrote:
>  
> 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 <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20161216/dd328739/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list