[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at nic.br
Fri Sep 1 04:59:34 UTC 2017

> You have presented a proposal and we absolutely need to make sure that proposal is considered.  Rubens has presented his strawperson, you have presented yours.  Is there a way to merge the two?  There may be other proposals out there and I strongly encourage those to come forward.

Actually, I presented a first straw person in the meeting before this one, and it was to strike Q23 altogether... that was the only one that only come out that I could claim copyright to. The one presented at the start of the call was already modified due to WT members input, Anne included, and the one I sent after call was based on what was discussed in the call... so it is already at the 3rd generation with many thumbprints, and there is no reason not to change further. It's not final until it is sent to Council labeled "final report". 

>  On the issue of whether applicants that propose new services should pay to have these new services reviewed, this is a complex issues. On the one hand, as you state, it may be a disincentive to propose new innovative services.  On the other hand, reviewing new services does come with a cost for evaluation.  New services may require a different skill set of reviewers that reviewing the existing services.  Reviewing new services may require a more thorough security analysis, competition analysis, etc. than existing services (which are already reviewed and proven).    So not charging those applicants that propose new services for the evaluation of those new services results in those that do not propose new types of registry services subsidizing those that do.  From a policy perspective, that may be ok, but it is a policy decision we should all make.

I'm all for the SubPro WG making this decision, but I'm unsure that it belongs to WT4, since application fees looks more like WT1 to me. 

> FYI, the existing Registry Agreements do require registries to pay the costs of proposing new registry services if a Technical Panel has to be called in to review the new services.  I believe there may be a cap of $50,000, but I could be confusing that with the 2012 Round costs.

That applied to 2012, and even there might not be a real cap but only an indication of value, since some fees charged during the process differed from the guidebook. On RSTEPs that occurred after the new gTLD program, there was only one I'm aware of, PIR's .ong/.ngo bundling, which cost was much higher than USD 50k. 

> Thanks for keeping the discussion going and I hope you do feel free expressing your ideas/proposals going forward.  If not, please bring that to my attention (or to Avri’s attention if you are more comfortable with that).  I am trying my best to be neutral and encourage discussion, but I am not infallible.  

Likewise, WT4 do have one co-chair that was not mentioned as discouraging discussion, Cheryl, if someone feels more comfortable raising an issue. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170901/4774c6a8/attachment.html>

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