[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016

[Heather Forrest]

Thanks very much, Phil. To this I'll add my initial comment that sparked this line of discussion, which was:


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?


Happy Friday and weekend to all,

Heather

________________________________
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano at mayerbrown.com>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 6:01
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016


Dear all:



Per Jeff’s request, I write to circulate via email our AC chat discussion with respect to backend accreditation, taken from our last teleconference.



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 unforeseen services… Just flagging the issue for consideration.

* * * *

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.

* * * *

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 standardized



[adjourned]



I apologize if I left out any other salient statements following my initial note.



Thank you,



Phillip V. Marano

MAYER ▪ BROWN



From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 3:12 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 18 July 2016



Dear PDP WG members,



Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 18 July.  These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript.  The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/1.+WG+Meetings.



Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Meeting, 18 July 2016



1.  Co-Chairs



Notes:

•         Stephen Coates is stepping down as Co-Chair.

•         Agreement that there is no need for a third Co-Chair at this time, in addition to Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria as Co-Chairs.



2. Sub-Team Discussion (sign-up sheet https://docs.google.com/document/d/146fl7TfrHAkA5Cw0VfoTdGcmeZtimnMBDpXQj-2zwcs/edit)



Notes:



A reminder was sent 18 July.  Please sign up by 22 July.  Volunteers so far:



Track 1 -- Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issues -- Participants: 24; Observers: 11

Track 2 -- Legal/Regulatory Issues -- Participants: 20; Observers: 10

Track 3 -- String Contention, Objections & Disputes -- Participants: 17; Observers: 11

Track 4 -- IDNs/Technical & Operations -- Participants: 13; Observers: 10



•         Staff have updated the track descriptions based on the conversations from ICANN 56.

•         Leadership talked about a possible plan for how the Work Track Sub Teams would meet.  Suggested rotation: week 1--Tracks 1 and 2, week 2--Tracks 3 and 4 + Full Committee.

•         Work on creating the community comments requests based on the information we need.  Could be done like CC1 or in some other way.



2. CC1 reminder/Discuss draft conclusions document



Action Items:

1.       Urge your groups to complete the CC1 responses (extension until 01 August).

2.       Review the draft conclusions document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16Sd6mpO5MqHl7BHOl9HBENDgUvcqQ04QumbVNfVu-FM/edit?usp=sharing



Notes:

•         Deadline: 25 July.  Received so far: Re: Statements -- 7 received; Re: CC1 -- None received.

•         Noted the complexity of answering the questions and that some groups may need more time.  Suggest allowing until the next meeting on 01 August (25 July is canceled).

•         Draft conclusions document is a staff summation on the overarching subjects.  May change as CC1 responses are received.



3. Resolution on Policy Items/Implementation Plan(s)



Notes:

•         Example: Accreditation of back-end providers (Work Track 1) -- included from the Discussion Group, but analysis of policy versus implementation has not been done.

•         Consider establishing an implementation group to develop criteria, taking into consideration policy issues.

•         Develop pros and cons for the program.

•         Would like to see discussion on topics like this on the list.  Send further comments to the list.

__________________________________________________________________________


This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160722/5d0205af/attachment-0001.html>