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

Frédéric Guillemaut - SafeBrands fg at safebrands.com
Thu Sep 1 08:22:14 UTC 2016 

+1.


Le 31/08/2016 à 22:12, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbHz a écrit :
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>; 'Austin, Donna' 
>> <Donna.Austin at neustar.biz <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>>; 
>> 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele at blacknight.com 
>> <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br 
>> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>; 
>> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt1 at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>or 
>> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto: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> 
>> [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 
>> <mailto:Donna.Austin at neustar.biz>>; 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' 
>> <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>; 'Rubens 
>> Kuhl' <rubensk at nic.br <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>
>>
>> *From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br 
>> <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto: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> 
>> [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 <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto: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/ 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.host_&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=rsKaCFTAS_xeuZkRp4rTacIsxQtfzGu9aaJ7zgp893k&e=>
>>
>> http://blacknight.blog/ 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=WsbKPNDF6xXlMUSi7m3af6u780P6n4OPiEva16TAR3Q&e=>
>>
>> http://www.blacknight.press 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.blacknight.press&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=tAuufLQWDo780aMZgc58JYwUvxDbXwuzaRomojIJL-0&e=> 
>> - get our latest news & media coverage
>>
>> http://www.technology.ie 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.technology.ie&d=DQQGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=dXEDlX23_rIBYHzzKf8gD5lsHnH4lZb_hAY2yHx07ic&e=>
>>
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>>
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>
>> Social: http://mneylon.social 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mneylon.social&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=RxbJurYc0jGtAemp7G6GphtFSd3GOrLnek76WuxK3X8&e=>
>>
>> Random Stuff: http://michele.irish 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__michele.irish&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=VOroj8XthhRyQE6NTqkdUePNStX149XxJyiM8vS2Ty4&s=SnDsMyTxoWEyY4LhjAoUMTITyLGmgAjCDzZJ9jIR1fo&e=> 
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> 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 <mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
>> *Date: *Tuesday 30 August 2016 at 14:18
>> *To: *Michele Neylon <michele at blacknight.com 
>> <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
>> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" 
>> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

-- 

*Frédéric Guillemaut *

Directeur Associé
SafeBrands

<https://www.safebrands.fr>

Tél. : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 07
Fax : +33 (0)4 88 66 22 20

www.safebrands.fr <https://www.safebrands.fr> - l’actualité des noms de 
domaine <https://www.safebrands.info>

*Siège social : *
Pôle Media de la Belle de Mai
37, rue Guibal
13356 Marseille Cedex 03 - France

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160901/4268bdbd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logoSAFBRANDS-FR-SSMC1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160901/4268bdbd/logoSAFBRANDS-FR-SSMC1-0001.png>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list