[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Attendance, Recording, AC recording, & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 4 IDNs/Technical & Operations call on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC
Julie Bisland
julie.bisland at icann.org
Thu Oct 12 11:18:19 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC.
Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p6m7d2hlucb/<https://participate.icann.org/p6m7d2hlucb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=ba32205baa7d5c6f9f2d022df27c77f6f8ad33f70eee561c5b2448cd9588aee0>
The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4
Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uYJEB
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julie
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 October 2017
Julie Bisland:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 03:00 UTC.
Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_uYJEB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=1W14Jid0OK9pCHzG00zBuldun40vTpMWV_Rr_MboA8Y&s=W1doDw5qSEAaxebPbBrTAduKnsS0MA6NV6DZ7aQRRtc&e=
Martin Sutton:Good morning/evening!
Julie Bisland:Welcome, Martin :)
Jeff Neuman:1,2,3 good
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Wow - attendance is not very good.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@staff- the 520 number is Anne.
Julie Bisland:thank you, Anne
Trang Nguyen:One additional note is that if a RSP program will exist in subsequent rounds, new registry services would have to be applied for by the RSP.
Jeff Neuman:@trang - why
Trang Nguyen:The RSP would be the one delivering the registry service. So if an applicant's business model necessitates a registry service that a RSP is not already approved for, the RSP would apply for the registry service.
Trang Nguyen:sorry, i'm not on audio.
Trang Nguyen:I can see how it could depend on how the service is proposed to be delivered.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: just to clarify, Jeff, are you saying Registry operator can offer a new service and it would not be the backend provider of registry services who applies?
Trang Nguyen:@Rubens, yes.
Jeff Neuman:yes. Not all Registry Services must be provided by the RSP
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):That seems right to me.
Jeff Neuman:P.S. it is BTAPPA, not BTPPA :)
Jeff Neuman:Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition
Jeff Neuman:I am soooo sorry for naming the first one that. Did not expect that name to stick
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):okay thank you
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Jeff - we can't hear you
Julie Bisland:Jeff, no audio
Jeff Neuman:sorry,
Jeff Neuman:it says i am speaking
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - What slide are you on?
Jeff Neuman:or you could say "but may extend the contract negotiation process"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Sorry for delay joinung, as the telco tried to fix my line to the house, they discinnected the INTERNET line!!!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:GRRR here now irritated but here
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Ouch Cheryl - glad you got "connected".
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Phew indeed Anne
Martin Sutton:Agree Jeff, thx.
Rubens Kuhl:Yes.
Jeff Neuman:yes
Rubens Kuhl:Just a comment: the parenthesis is not contained in AGB.
Rubens Kuhl:This is a quote from AGB...
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):yes - but we don't have Question 23 and that is policy
Jeff Neuman:Provide name and full description of all theRegistry Services to be provided. Descriptionsshould include both technical and businesscomponents of each proposed service, andaddress any potential security or stabilityconcerns.The following registry services are customaryservices offered by a registry operator:A. Receipt of data from registrars concerningregistration of domain names and nameservers.B. Dissemination of TLD zone files.C. Dissemination of contact or otherinformation concerning domain nameregistrations (e.g., port-43 WHOIS, Web-based Whois, RESTful Whois service).D. Internationalized Domain Names, whereoffered.E. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).The applicant must describe whether any ofthese registry services are intended to be offeredin a manner unique to the TLD.Additional proposed registry services that areunique to the registry must also be described.
Jeff Neuman:Sorry for bad formatting
Rubens Kuhl:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_agb_evaluation-2Dprocedures-2D04jun12-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=1W14Jid0OK9pCHzG00zBuldun40vTpMWV_Rr_MboA8Y&s=eO7kMXZpgzdd9j_AB8grlgKM-ms1lnufwMYe0sX4Yf0&e=
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you Jeff. I think this is a good question as it stands. But it's possible we should have pre-approved services - they would have to be desribed in detail as a "safe harbor".
Rubens Kuhl:Page 2-24 and on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I hope I managed not to hash it too badly Jeff
Jeff Neuman:i am not saying that
Rubens Kuhl:Anne, it's not that... what's in SP4 is a direct quote of AGB..
Rubens Kuhl:But it's the part that explains the procedures.
Rubens Kuhl:2.2.3 "Registry Services Reviews"
Rubens Kuhl:Even in 2012, Registry Services was a non-scored question. So one could fail due to failing that review, but not get any points for passin it.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: I did not realize Jeff's comment related only to pre-approved services. I still think Question 23 would have to stay in if the registry is proposing new services.
Rubens Kuhl:Anne, current implementation guideline is what is in the evaluation procedures... the question text is how that guideline was implemented.
Jeff Neuman:IF there are new services, then yes we would need something that asks what those new services are and how they would implement it
Rubens Kuhl:SP4 doesn't have pre-approved services... even though 2012 AGB listed customary services, it gave no pre-approval status to them.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Rubens - I think we are talking about developing pre-approved services.
Rubens Kuhl:Anne, we are. SP1, 2 and 3 all suggest pre-approved services. And that's a change from current implementation.
Jeff Neuman:To me SP3 seems to make the most sense....but that is a personal opinion
Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, I believe the decision matrix will make it easier to pick individual decisions instead of an specific SP.
Jeff Neuman:ok..i will withdraw my personal opinion until then :)
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Re last point on slide 11 - "last bullet point" - change "additional" to "new" in describing requirement to describe "new services"
Rubens Kuhl:Anne, since it's only a comparison instead of specific language I believe we just need to agree on the understanding, which is indeed "new" like you mentioned.
Rubens Kuhl:We can come to that conclusion in the next few slides.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Certainly agree with that Cheryl.
Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, I believe so, yes.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff - that's a good clarification question.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Not by my understanding Jeff Correct me if I am wrong
Rubens Kuhl:Slide 14 will give more clarity on that, if we get to that.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Would there be a pre-approved manner of delivering DNSSEC as a "safe harbor" and only describe if you are doing it differently or uniquely
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:were avoiding evoking the words Qualifying Questions Anne ;-)
Martin Sutton:good point Anne, seems sensible to explore
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff so Applicant msut describe HOW it will deliver pre-approved services then
Rubens Kuhl:In DNSSSEC: NSECxNSEC3, use or not use an HSM, supported algorithms etc.
Quoc Pham:a little off trace, I would like to just to make a statement that regardless of the straw-person that we put forward, applications should not be prioritised based on their listed registry services
Quoc Pham:*little off track
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Quoc - very relevant and not at all off track
Rubens Kuhl:Quoc, that's what question 3. Timing is all about.
Jeff Neuman:So, @Anne I am not sure there is a way to streamline all aspects of evaluating how one operationalizes those services that may have common protocols
Quoc Pham:@right, thanks Rubens that wasn't clear to me
Quoc Pham:@Rubens
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I think for the list, the questions would have to be longer and more detailed than portrayed in the matrix.
Jeff Neuman:On slide 14, I think 1, 2 and 4 should be pre-approved
Jeff Neuman:but 3 seems too broad
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Cheryl - sorry but I really must go - thanks so much!
Jeff Neuman:Thanks!
Rubens Kuhl:Thanks all!
Martin Sutton:thanks all, bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Bye
avri doria:bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171012/ba507df2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance TRACK 4 Oct 12.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 326661 bytes
Desc: Attendance TRACK 4 Oct 12.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171012/ba507df2/AttendanceTRACK4Oct12-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Track 4 - 12 Oct 2017.mp3
Type: audio/mpeg
Size: 6747951 bytes
Desc: Track 4 - 12 Oct 2017.mp3
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20171012/ba507df2/Track4-12Oct2017-0001.mp3>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4
mailing list