[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
Aikman-Scalese, Anne
AAikman at lrrc.com
Tue Sep 5 18:38:17 UTC 2017
Jeff,
Thanks for your note. I certainly don’t see a problem with charging fees if a Technical Panel has to be called in – in other words, maintain the status quo in this regard. With respect to maintaining the status quo, my understanding of the existing Application Question is that it states as follows:
23. Provide name and full description of all the Registry Services to be provided. Descriptions should include both technical and business components of each proposed service, and address any potential security or stability concerns.
The following registry services are customary services offered by a registry operator:
A. Receipt of data from registrars concerning registration of domain names and name servers.
B. Dissemination of TLD zone files.
C. Dissemination of contact or other information concerning domain name registrations (e.g., port-43 WHOIS, Web- based Whois, RESTful Whois service).
D. Internationalized Domain Names, where offered.
E. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The applicant must describe whether any of
these registry services are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD.
Additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described. (Emphasis added by me.)
You indicated that both Straw proposals would be discussed and considered. Later Sarah and I received a redline of the existing (Rubens) proposal from Kurt Pritz which he said Rubens had asked him to prepare. That redline raises additional issues. For example, it says that preapproved services will include
(a) IDN registrations. (permitting IDN registrations raise issues of customer confusion. It also raises trademark Sunrise issues since many TM owners hold idn trademark registrations for their English marks. )
(b) “additional marketplace Rights Protection Mechanisms that have been identified as “blocks”. (I find myself wondering whether Avri has any comments on this in her personal capacity. I may really like this but it doesn’t change the procedural aspect of what we are doing.)
(c) Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition (BTPPA). (Sorry I don’t know what a “BTPPA” service is.)
So we have more to discuss than the two Straw Person proposals put forward. We also need to discuss the preapproved services. Charging fees for evaluation of additional services is not the only policy issue. There is also a policy issue as to which point in time the proposed services will be evaluated. My proposal says proposed new services should be included in the application phase for proper transparency and evaluation at that time. (This seems to be the case in the existing version of Question 23.) The redline circulated by Kurt to me and Sarah (apparently at Ruben’s request), says the applicant can choose at what stage it wants the new services to be evaluated. So as I see it , there are three clear policy issues that must be discussed here:
1. Should new registry services be proposed in the application itself or at any stage chosen by the applicant, including at contracting and after contracting? Why are we changing the time of evaluation of proposed new registry services when the existing application says “Additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.”? Do registries prefer this be a discussion that occurs only between contracting parties and ICANN?
2. What existing services should be pre-approved for the next round? Does it include idn registrations and RPMs with blocking?
3. Should applicants pay fees for evaluation of proposed new services even if no Technical Panel is needed? Why is this being changed from the process followed in the 2012 round?
I think that these questions need to be discussed openly before we go to the redlining phase. I do not believe that these issues are being adequately clarified for participants.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
[cid:image002.png at 01D3263B.77207C60]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>
From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 9:07 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Rubens Kuhl'
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
Anne,
I would like to apologize if I have in any way created a hostile environment for anyone in any work track or in the Working Group. I will try to be more cognizant of my actions in the future. It certainly was not my intent to stifle ideas coming forward. Just the opposite was intended when I asked that you submit a proposal that achieved the goals of efficiency, expediency, but also encouraged innovation.
I view part of my job as overall co-chair to make sure all viewpoints are expressed and then to get Working Group members to try to think outside of the box, put themselves in the shoes of the other sides and try to come up with a compromise solution that can attempt to satisfy all points (or as many as possible).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Best regards,
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: 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 Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:42 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
And please don’t tell me I am free to file a complaint. That is not the answer. There were two people in chat who supported the notion of two tracks and you want to ignore that because it is not your solution. This is not the proper role for a co-chair.
You should be raising the different proposals and asking for full discussion of them. Jeff specifically asked me for a proposal. I had to force you to take my comment to communicate that proposal. Then two other people supported it.
I have never before experienced such a biased working group environment.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
[cid:image005.png at 01D32635.F2163460]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>
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] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:33 PM
To: 'Rubens Kuhl'
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
Frankly, most people aren’t expressing opinions at this time on the list or on the call. I am very surprised as I think the role of a Co-Chair (and the Sub Pro Chairs) is to facilitate discussion. I don’t see that happening here. The environment from you and from Jeff is hostile.
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
[cid:image006.png at 01D32635.F2163460]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>
From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:28 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
On Aug 31, 2017, at 8:22 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:
Rubens,
I don’ t have an objection to establishing 2 tracks – one for established services evaluation and one for new proposed services evaluation.
You don't, but most people do, as both the call and the mailing list discussion have shown.
I do object to charging more for an application that proposes new services – it’s against the goal of innovation and creativity.
Something that can be raised for applicant support. It's a worthy cause, and lots of jurisdiction give tax breaks to R&D, innovation, entrepreneurship ... it's just out of scope for WT4.
I do object to dealing with proposals for new services in the contracting phase. It is not transparent to the community.
Not including the community in registry services reviews is how current GNSO policy is. This WG is not chartered to review it.
Rubens
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170905/5a64d1c7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6501 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170905/5a64d1c7/image005-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170905/5a64d1c7/image006-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6514 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170905/5a64d1c7/image002-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4
mailing list