[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services

Wed Aug 31 20:12:13 UTC 2016

Agreed, some form of certification would probably suffice.

Sent from my iPad

> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:13, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Jeff.
>  
> Seems like the back-end providers having a contact with ICANN would introduce ICANN into a relationship with a registry’s vendors that doesn’t exist now and doesn’t apparently need to exist, given the absence of problems.  I think most of us ICANNlibertarians think that the forced EBERO relationship is invasive enough – especially due to the lack of choice about who would step in.  So, I guess from my point of view its not “accreditation” (as the meaning of that word has become known in ICANNland as opposed to university, so much as it is a “permit” that lasts for a certain number of years.  We don’t want ICANN in the kitchen cooking, but it would be nice for them to check in every 5 years or so and make sure there are no rats in the kitchen.
>  
> Best,
> Paul
>  
>  
> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:55 AM
> To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>; 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele at blacknight.com>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
>  
> All,
>  
> This is a great discussion and I believe we should document all of these pros and cons for WT1.  Terminology (certification vs. accreditation vs. something else) will be important as we go down this path, but for now I would encourage us to stick to the concept of a voluntary process to pre-evaluate a registry-services provider such that it would not require a “re-evaluation” every single time it was associated with a new TLD application.  This is the concept that I think of when we talk about this subject.
>  
> All of the other issues we will need to address as well.  Are they under contract with ICANN?  If so, what does that contract look like?  If they are under contract, would that be more akin to the types of MoUs that they have with EBEROs, Escrow Providers, etc. or more like a contract that they have with  registrars?  Under what circumstances, if any, would they need to be re-evaluated?
>  
> WT-1 now has this issue and we will re-circulate the notes that have the problems which we are trying to solve and benefits.  The benefits of having a “pre-evaluation process” would include  (a) having consistency in evaluation results, (b) improving competition by allowing other third parties to become RSPs, (c) presumably lower TLD application fees for registry operators (since that part of the evaluation would not have to be performed every time), (d) lessening overall TLD application processing time.   We can post the other benefits we came up with. 
>  
> We also need to document the negatives that have been pointed out such that if we did establish this pre-approval process, we design that process in such a way to avoid the negatives. 
>  
> Hope that all makes sense. 
>  
> 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 or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> @Jintlaw
>  
>  
> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 3:54 PM
> To: 'Austin, Donna' <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele at blacknight.com>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
>  
> We should consider whether “accreditation” might be the better concept – if we have a perpetually open round top levels may become the new second levels as new brands roll out, reducing the dependence on the registrar layer.  I’m not wed to the idea, but I see back-end registry service providers becoming increasingly important in the ecosystem.  “Accreditation” would not only speed evaluation, but could provide some level of buying comfort to a potential new registry (similar to what registrar accreditation does for the second level end user).
>  
> For what it’s worth and not in any way dogmatic.  Just thinking out loud.
>  
> Best,
> Paul
>  
>  
> Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
> policy at paulmcgrady.com
>  
>  
>  
> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:28 PM
> To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
>  
> I agree with Michele that the choice of words is quite important, which is why I’m interested to understand what people mean when they say accreditation.
>  
> There are many who believe that ‘accreditation’ will solve a number of problems, but I think that depends on what you mean by accreditation and the problems you’re trying to solve.
>  
> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:30 AM
> To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
>  
> Rubens
>  
> The choice of words, at least in my view, is quite important.
> Accreditation in ICANN-land infers creating contractual relationships that may not be desirable for anyone.
> Certification or “approval” suggests that the entity has met certain requirements either via some form of test or by stating that they’d do (or not do) certain things.
> Both options create a form of standard.
>  
> As for the data – I disagree.
>  
> Regards
>  
> Michele
>  
>  
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blacknight.blog/
> http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
> http://www.technology.ie
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Social: http://mneylon.social
> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish 
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>  
> From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
> Date: Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18
> To: Michele Neylon <michele at blacknight.com>
> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Provision of back-end registry services
>  
>  
> Em 30 de ago de 2016, à(s) 06:05:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> escreveu:
>  
> What about obligations on the backend providers to release data? Ie. In the case where a registry switches backend provider.
>  
> Data is already stored at escrow provider, so the easier way for a registry to get its data is authorizing the escrow provider to allow a different backend to access data. 
>  
> One obligation that is more interesting to impose on backend providers is to cooperate with the transition, notably the DNSSEC transition. 
>  
>  
> While I agree that any potential accreditation system / process should be lightweight (maybe it should be “certification” and not “accreditation”?) I also think that baking in a couple of other elements to it wouldn’t hurt.
>  
> I'm neutral on wording. 
>  
>  
>  
> Rubens
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160831/c4477555/attachment-0001.html>