[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 03 June 2019

Tue Jun 11 02:08:05 UTC 2019

Anne,
I just wanted to clarify some of the items discussed on the last call.

  1.  When we were discussing the range of four months to a year, that was referring to the length of time needed between the completion of  “pre-approval Process for RSPs” and the commencement of the Application Window to accept applications for TLD strings.  Essentially it amounts to the amount of notice that perspective applicants have of which RSPs passed the technical evaluation prior to when the start date of submitting applications begins.  This is precisely related to the points you raise in your second paragraph.

  1.  With respect to that second paragraph, I am not sure it needs to be as comprehensive as you are making it sound.

     *   Pre-approval process should not need an appeals process, because (a) it is a voluntary program, and (b) RSPs that are not “pre-approved” can always support applications and elect to be evaluated again during the actual application window.
     *   The discussion thus far has leaned towards not having contracts between RSPs and ICANN governing any ongoing relationship.  Remember, this is just a process to pass the evaluation earlier in time than during the actual application window.
     *   That said, as you state, there may have to be a click-wrap Ts and Cs that the RSP must agree to when submitting their application. It would not govern an ongoing relationship, but rather just the limited RSP Pre-Approval Process.

Hope this helps a little in understanding my current thinking….which of course is shaped by the discussions and comments we have gotten thus far.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600
Mclean , VA 22102
UNITED STATES

T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079

CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of orders.  To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter.  In this case, please contact your client manager or admin at comlaude.com for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed.  Thank you.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 5:38 PM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 03 June 2019

Jeff pointed out in response to my question on the call that the public comment on the duration of the “pre-approved” status ranged from 4 months to one year.  That is pretty hard to ignore when developing a Principle related to the duration of  RSP “pre-approval”.

I think another issue might be allowing ICANN to put a stop on pre-approval applications in order to allow these to be completed before the application window opens. I realize some will say this is anti-competitive, but it almost seems as though an “RSP pre-approval window” would mean a far more orderly process in the next round.  Regarding a public list, you will have to have an agreement that accompanies the pre-approval process.  The reasons are that (1) applicants will have to be able to verify the pre-approval when making decisions on the right RSPs to contact when issuing RFPs for RSP services,  (2) an RSP who is not “pre-approved” by ICANN will need an appeal mechanism if it does not agree with ICANN’s assessment of its capabilities, and (3) the agreement established with ICANN will have to state the information required to be submitted in order to obtain the pre-approval and will have to state under what conditions ICANN can revoke the pre-approval.  Regarding publication of the pre-approved list, all you really need is the RSP’s consent to publish status when applying for pre-approval.  As a WG, we should likely be asking ICANN Org and ICANN Legal whether anyone thinks you can run a Pre-Approval program without any terms and conditions being accepted by the RSP applying for pre-approval.

As to marketing, I disagree with Greg Shatan’s comment and strongly agree with Jamie Baxter’s comments on the last call.  The whole issue of allocation of ICANN staff resources to the speed and order of processing applications is still in front of us and it is a big deal.  Speed to market is very important.  RSP pre-approval is an important aspect of speed to market.   Many of the questions related to processing of applications in the next round are in fact motivated by the desire to improve speed to market for applicants.  The advantage lies with those who
(1) have done this many times before,
(2) get the RSP pre-approval, and
(3) list only the “plain vanilla” services in their application.  The last element is the one we debated in Work Track 4 (and SubGroup B) because the “plain vanilla” approach to the new gTLD application does not serve the goal of innovation that is supposed to be the justification for the whole program.  (You may recall that a couple of us in Work Track 4 observed that sticking with “plain vanilla’ services applications should not result in faster processing of those applications. )

I still think the whole new gTLD  program falls short of being “innovative” in nature, although Kurt Pritz did an admirable job of presenting a few innovative TLDs in his presentation in Barcelona.  I sincerely hope that as the full WG moves forward, we will be able to develop policy that encourages more innovation in the space., not less.

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
[cid:image001.png at 01D51FD8.41F80D30]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 6:54 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 03 June 2019

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________

Follow inline some comments on today's discussions.

Discussion:
-- The third-parties don’t have a contract with ICANN so don’t see how you could have a publicly available list.  Not sure there is any value.

There are two questions here; one is the feasibility of making the list that ICANN Org already has of RSPs public or not. Every TLD currently in GDD portal has an RSP identifier, but there is no public list of all current RSPs in operation.

The other is if there is value; I don't see much value either, but this is far from impossible. In fact it would be very simple, provided it serves a purpose.

-- Maybe instead call them “pre-evaluated” RSPs.

This option was floated before, and "pre-approval" seemed combining more acceptance and less rejection from the WG. But "pre-evaluated" wouldn't be wrong at all.

-- QUESTION: Does RSP pre-approval apply regardless of the services to be provided in connection with a particular application or is the ability to meet the needs related to proposed new services part of the evaluation even if the RSP is Pre-approved?  QUESTION

That's likely to be impossible to generalize. I suggest leaving to the evaluators of the proposed "non-vanilla" services if those services require specific additional evaluation or not. That could take the form of clarifying questions to the proposed services.

-- If there are new registry services proposed then there would need to be a new evaluation.

Yes, for some definition of "new". This point will come in later discussions in the sections about evaluation.

-- What might be at issue here is what's the term of the pre-approval? It holds until the completion of the application and evaluation process. From then on the registry operator is responsible for meeting the technical requirements.

-- The pre-approval holds until the completion of the application/evaluation process.  After that the RO is responsible for meeting the technical requirements.  Not sure how you would remove pre-approval.

-- Whether an RSP is on a pre-approved list or not: Should be that at a point in time this RSP has qualified against a standard set of questions and that this stands for a period of time.  There still would need to be monitoring by the RO.

-- Need to decide how long the pre-approval lasts and when another evaluation is required.
-- the assumption was that the RSPs would retain their quality for that period of time, subject to pre-delegation testing.

It could hold until the evaluation criteria stays substantially similar to the one in which RSP got pre-approval on. I believe that content matters more than time here.

On PDT, we should be careful that ICANN blames the policy and AGB for using the same PDT to do first time delegations and to do RSP transition. While some tests are indeed the same, we should at least free the test at policy-level from being an exact replica of one another, and leave it to fulfilling the stability mission for how these two tests are similar or not.

-- Agreement on the need for more information from ICANN on the EBERO-triggering incidents.
-- This was supposed to provide efficiencies in the process.  This was never meant to be an accreditation.

At least not in how loaded the term accreditation carries meaning within the ICANN framework. The word in its natural habitat, the English language, doesn't seem to be so strong as its usage in ICANN matters.
But it what it is now, so better to avoid the accreditation terminology.

Next meeting: Start with Factoring in the Number of TLDs the RSP Intends to Support.

While load capacity is something that appeals to intuition, it's not how registry systems work. An RSP could handle a million brand TLDs and still fail to support the land rush of a single open TLD that is either too cheap or too popular at pre-registrations. Landrush and steady state load patterns are very connected to commercial definitions,  and one constant theme in the 2012 program is how TLDs moved from one model to another.

Rubens

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190611/ff9cb204/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6525 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190611/ff9cb204/image001-0001.png>