[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Attendance, Mp3 & AC Chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG Call 18 July 2016 22:00 UTC

Michelle DeSmyter michelle.desmyter at icann.org
Tue Jul 19 00:33:54 UTC 2016


Dear All,



Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 18 July 2016 at 22:00 UTC.  Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/NAKbAw

MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-18jul16-en.mp3  <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-18jul16-en.mp3>
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3>

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>



** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **



Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/



Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/NAKbAw



Thank you.

Kind regards,

Michelle DeSmyter



-------------------------------

Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 18 July 2016

 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG held on Monday, 18 July 2016 at 22:00 UTC
  Rubens Kuhl:Good <time of day> everyone!
  Greg Shatan:x = evening
  Guillemaut Frederic SafeBrands:Good evening
  Carlos:Hello
  Freida Tallon (.Sky):Good Evening All
  Paul McGrady:Howdee!
  Robin Gross:Good afternoon from foggy San Francisco!
  Vanda Scartezini:hi all
  Carlos:Thanks jeff, ther eis a LACRALO call in one hour and will have to move
  Vanda Scartezini:me too already informed and apologized
  Carlos:@Vanda +1 :)
  Paul McGrady:+1 Jeff.  Agree with that approach.
  Rubens Kuhl:Fine by me.
  Vanda Scartezini:ok
  Justine Chew:Yes, agreed
  Martin Sutton:me too
  Samantha Demetriou:+1
  Klaus Stoll:Fine
  Robin Gross:I agree also.
  Paul McGrady:Hi Cheryl!
  Phil Buckingham:good evening
  Steve Coates:Sorry for running late.
  Rubens Kuhl:Guilty of signing-up for all 4.
  Carlos:Zika is well represented then....
  Sara Bockey:I'm I the only one that has lost audio?
  Paul McGrady:@Jeff, it will be important that the meeting times don't overlap
  Rubens Kuhl:Sara, audio is OK here.
  Carlos:uxio ok
  Carlos:audio ok
  Robin Gross:a - ok
  Christa Taylor:yes we can hear you
  Vanda Scartezini:i have sent to Julie today my preference
  Rodolfo Mesa:Audio Ok
  Steve Chan:https://community.icann.org/x/FT2AAw
  Steve Chan:https://community.icann.org/x/7AObAw
  Carlton Samuels:Howdy all
  Carlton Samuels:Apologies for late joinging
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO):Finally i the AC room...  No more 'judt verbl' interventions from me now Jeff ;-)
  Steve Chan:Example for Work Track Scheduling: Week 1 - WT 1, 2; Week 2 - WT 3, 4, Full Group; Week 3  - WT 1, 2; Week 4 - WT 3, 4, Full Group
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO):makes sence Steve
  Susan Payne:My mike isn't working.  I will type
  Susan Payne:but carry on
  Richard Padilla:Hi all
  Carlton Samuels:For the record, Carlton Samuels is volunteering for Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues
  Steve Coates:As an FYI, I have stepped down from the BC due to my employment change that will go into effect next month.
  Susan Payne:It was justb a point on the new item for WT3 - PICDRP/RRDRP.  I think they may be more suitable to WT2.  WT3 seems to be top level issues, whereas compliance and other issues at 2nd level have been allocated to WT2
  Rubens Kuhl:Agree with Susan regarding PICDRP/RRDRP.
  Carlton Samuels:I Will Observe on Track 3.
  Steve Chan:FYI, responses for outreach are being tracked here: https://community.icann.org/x/2R6OAw
  Karen Day (SAS):Also agree with Susan re: PICDRP & RRDRP
  Steve Chan:And for CC1: https://community.icann.org/x/3B6OAw
  Cecilia Smith:I have sent a follow-up to the BC and will provide an update.
  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):The GAC is aiming to finalise its response to CC1 by the deadline next week, or close to it.
  Vanda Scartezini:may be one week
  Samantha Demetriou:The Registries could probably use an additional week
  Steve Chan:@Susan, Rubens, Karen - I can move to track 2
  Susan Payne:Thanks Steve
  Robin Gross:I suspect NCSG could use the extra time.
  Greg Shatan:Please sir, may I have some more (time)?
  Greg Shatan:Thank you, sire!
  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Having great expectations.
  Greg Shatan:(IPC = poor downtrodden urchins)
  Robin Gross:Better than "Les Miserables"
  Avri Doria:and waht was the answer Oliver got when he asked for more?
  Jeff Neuman:You know I am a sucker for musical references
  Jeff Neuman:Avri - the response was utter amazement that he asked for more
  Richard Padilla:I will like to volunteer as an observer on track 4
  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Of course Oliver was a literary character before he sang. Just like Alexander Hamilton was a Treasury Secretary before he was a musical.
  Carlos:would be nice to have the full doc as a pdf (and I´m not Dr. Liese by any way)
  Steve Chan:@Jeff, I tried to make that point as well :)
  Carlos::)
  Steve Coates:+1
  Carlos:txs
  Steve Chan:@ Carlos, Steve Coates, sure thing
  Greg Shatan:What the Dickens, Jeff?
  Carlos:in the mailing list please Steve Ch.
  Steve Chan:@ Carlos, I will add to the WIki and share with the mailing list as well
  Carlos:@Steve Danke!
  Rubens Kuhl:I would just add that back-end accreditation allows for not only have a pre-defined set of approved back-ends, but also the possibility of choosing a back-end only at contract signing time, provide applicant agrees to only use accredited providers.
  Rubens Kuhl:So the reference to sets is defining an outcome yet to be chosen by the WG.
  Donna Austin, Neustar:so perhaps we should do that analysis
  Greg Shatan:"Please, sir, I want some more."  The master was a fat, healthy man; but he turned very pale. He gazed in stupefied astonishment on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung for support to the copper. The assistants were paralysed with wonder; the boys with fear.  "What!" said the master at length, in a faint voice.  "Please, sir," replied Oliver, "I want some more."  The master aimed a blow at Oliver's head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arms; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.
  Donna Austin, Neustar:I feel it's implementation associated with some of the challenges associated with technical questions.
  Rubens Kuhl:The policy issue is whether one is required to show the technical capacity beforehand, at application time, or after.
  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Rubens, but there may be other possibilities to solve the problem. I don't see accreditation as the only answer.
  Rubens Kuhl:Donna, it doesn't need to be. Accreditation is just an option, but the same process can be used to have a greenfield operator start from zero.
  Heather Forrest:Picking up on @Rubens' point, would it encourage applicants (particularly in underserved areas/communities/interests) to apply if satisfying tech requirements was a separate step that came after the application submission?
  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Rubens, I think that's a good point, we're largely talking about greenfield operators. those that have passed necessary test and are in compliance with regsitry agreements probably don't need accreditation.
  Rubens Kuhl:If accreditation doesn't work, then registrars are already an issue for ICANN...
  Carlos:agree with heather
  Paul McGrady:+1 Heather.  Agree that this is important for geo diversity.
  Carlos:sorry, Dr. H. Forrest
  Karen Day (SAS):As an applicant involved in a contention, it would have been preferable to  pick a back end after the contention was resolved
  Paul McGrady:HRH Dr. H. Forrest...
  Martin Sutton:could simplify, reduce costs and create predictability
  Carlos:In which WGroup would this issues be dealt with?
  Carlos:@Paul :)
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO):Makes  sense to me Heather
  Christa Taylor:Good idea and it makes a lot of sense
  Heather Forrest:I thought I killed it
  Susan Payne:I like that idea - would be a strong argument for an acreditation
  Vanda Scartezini:to me too. in del=veloping areas mostly are under back end aalready known services..
  Carlos:<Question> which WS or WG would deal with this issue?
  Donna Austin, Neustar:Wouldn't ICANN need assurances that the applicant has technical capability before they approve and application?
  Heather Forrest:Seems like it would encourage some of the types of applicants that we struggled to get in 2012
  Karen Day (SAS):I think I just lost audio...
  Karen Day (SAS):will dial back in
  Steve Chan:@Carlos, it's currently in Track 1
  Robin Gross:I hear
  Christa Taylor:works here
  Vanda Scartezini:no problems here
  Carlos:@Steve leave it there
  Rubens Kuhl:Looks fine in both. Which is why I'm glad tracks 1 and 4 wont' have conflicting schedules...
  Karen Day (SAS):im back
  Donna Austin, Neustar:I would hope that there is no PDT if there is an accreditation process.
  Greg Shatan:Now the Sprint Guy.
  Rubens Kuhl:ICANN does a lot of work before signing the agreement, like background checking... adding the back-end at this point would be a very small addition to the sign-up process.
  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Karen, in that context it makes sense.
  Karen Day (SAS):@Greg - true
  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, if this is in work track 1, wouldn't the discussion happen in that work team?
  Paul McGrady:@Jeff, funny that we think it is the flip now!
  Steve Chan:@Jeff, I was just taking a note to dig around in ICANN
  Justine Chew:Donna +1
  Donna Austin, Neustar:@Jeff, agree on the reasons for trying to do it this way, just trying to find a way to make it efficient.
  Rubens Kuhl:Accreditation is an implementation that can affect already established registries.
  Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Regarding backend accreditation, it looks like certain technical Application Questions shared a nexus between the envisaged Registry Services and “business components of each proposed service.”  In particular, Question 23 asked applicants to “describe whether any of [the customary services] are intended to be offered in a manner unique to the TLD” and advised that “additional proposed registry services that are unique to the registry must also be described.”  It may be worthwhile to explore how that nexus could / should be addressed through a backend accreditation program.  Perhaps accreditation would apply only to customary services, e.g. dissemination of zone files, registration data, IDNs and DNSSEC, and not any unique or unforseen services…  Just flagging the issue for consideration.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO):you men provide the Board with a pcjkage that inludes "some implementataion guidelines"  Jeff??
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO):and Sorry my AC  keeps dropping
  Vanda Scartezini:unhappily LACRALO is starting and I need to close this session and enter into LACRALO. apologize to all
  Greg Shatan:@CLO, it's not just men....
  Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: most of the services you described could be added via an RSEP process, so the what's not common ground can be added after contract signing thru RSEP without having it specified at application time.
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO):OK Jeff  that is clear, ecause I to am concerned abut seeming to be puttng 'cart before horse' herre and overstepping our Charter
  Heather Forrest:@Phil - good points! This highlights Jeff's comment much earlier that we would have to have something in place of PDT to essentially sign off on the package of standard and non-standard services
  Rubens Kuhl:@Phil Marano: application time is needed when it might decided who gets a string, or when the applicant wants assurance some usage model would be approved.
  Phil Buckingham:@ Phil - yes agreed  it is a question of which questions can be  standardised
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO):Yes Alan +++
  Avri Doria:We had thought about them and discussed them with staff.  We just never wrote down what we beleived had been agreed to on implementation.
  Christa Taylor:Agreed on implementation vs recommendation
  Justine Chew:Agree with Alan's point.
  Carlos:Sorry Folks, have to move to a LACRALO call.
  Alan Greenberg:@avri, yes, we talked about some of them, and others were just omitted.
  Alan Greenberg:I have to leave now as well. Thanks for interesting call.
  Heather Forrest:Thanks Jeff, great call with very interesting discussion
  Cheryl Langdon-Orr  (CLO):Bye  for now then... talk again soon
  Paul McGrady:Thanks Jeff!  Thanks Avri!
  Christa Taylor:Enjoy your vacation!!
  Sara Bockey 2:thanks all
  Rubens Kuhl:Bye all!
  Phil Marano (Mayer Brown):Thanks all!
  Alexander Schubert:bye
  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Thank you
  Christa Taylor:bye
  Guillemaut Frederic SafeBrands:bye
  Phil Buckingham:LOL
  Cecilia Smith:Thanks!
  Greg Shatan:Bye all!
  Richard Padilla:Bye all have a good vacation for those going on such later
  Freida Tallon (.Sky):Bye Bye All
  Susan Payne:thanks all
  Phil Buckingham:thanks .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160719/733b69c2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attendance New gTLD 18 July 2016 .xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 28815 bytes
Desc: Attendance New gTLD 18 July 2016 .xlsx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160719/733b69c2/AttendanceNewgTLD18July2016-0001.xlsx>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list