[Gnso-newgtld-wg] EBERO / SLAM Data Status and next steps

[Rubens Kuhl]

> On 30 Jan 2020, at 19:49, Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM> wrote:
> 
> Steve – thanks for this.  After the discussion on today’s call and looking at the data, I have a few thoughts on the RSP deliberations.
> 
> From Jeffs original email - “The Working Group, however, is trending towards agreeing that evaluation and thus RSP pre-approval (which is likely to leverage the same or substantially the same evaluation criteria) should be forward looking and not be impacted by past performance.”
> 
> I Agree, no RSP should be disqualified for new rounds based on past performance. Ability to operate a registry system should be determined based on current requirements (EPDP temp specs for example).

That is already verified by continuous ICANN monitoring and compliance.


> 
> “The Working Group is also trending towards requiring the pre-approval prior to each evaluation round and that the approval will be good for the duration of the then-current round.”
> 
> On this I disagree. No RP should be “certified” or “pre-approved” . It’s very clear from the statistics that many RSPs failed to meet requirements even AFTER they passed PDT “Of the 52 cases, 11 occurred prior to the TLDs Sunrise period, 8 during Sunrise, 2 post Sunrise, 4 before General Availability and 27 during General Availability.”
> 
> I understand the desire for efficiencies and the frustration that 2012 round operators experienced having to repeat the same tests hundreds of times. Instead of a “pre-certification” or “pre-approval” I suggest breaking the testing into phases, so that the elements of RSP testing that are not specific to a unique TLD could be performed prior to the application window or even during application review, one time, per provider. A good example of this is verifying EPP – are the communications between the registry and registrar working? IDN tables and LGRs could be reviewed at any time. Testing of data escrow could occur at any time. The parts of the Self-certification documents that are not specific to the TLD could be submitted at any time.

Those are things of a different nature. EPP can be verified in real world testing, while IDN tables and LGRs are more of a evaluation test.

> 
> But instead of preferring to this as “Pre approval”, which to me and to future applicants who are not ICANN insiders, implies some sort of service level guarantee, I think we should refer to those RSPs as having passed “Phase 1 testing.”

I like the idea of not using words such as "approval", since those could carry liablities to ICANN in case of an RSP failure. I also like the idea of slicing the tests, but the previous paragraph shows that I might cut in a different format.


Rubens

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200130/cbc91e63/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200130/cbc91e63/signature.asc>