[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes on Registry Services

Thu Sep 5 20:27:52 UTC 2019

Anne,

Please listen to the call last night. I spent a lot of time on the basics of what are Registry Services, what is the Application RSTEP, vs. what is an RSEP for an existing registry/already delegated registry.

As we discussed last night, if we state that all new applications that propose Registry Services (other than the Pre-Approved Services) go through the same process that existing registries go through to introduce new Registry Services, then all Registry Services that should go out for Public Comment will go out for Public Comment prior to being approved.  If a new applicant does not want to get those services approved prior to its signing an agreement with ICANN, that is fine.  But if it applies for the new service after their contract is signed, they will have to go through the then-current RSEP process (like all existing registries).  Those services that would be put out for public comment under that RSEP process, would also be put out for public comment.  In other words, we are treating the new entrants the same as the existing registries. This is critical as we do not want to stiffly innovation or make it harder for the new players than for the 1200+ incumbent TLDs.

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:24 PM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes on Registry Services

Thanks Rubens. I was also unable to attend last night's call but will listen later on..  Regarding the moment of disclosing registry services, the disagreement in Work Track 4 was over whether the 2012 AGB application form (Questions 18 Purposes and 23 Services taken together) required disclosure of all services the applicant intended to render.  I believe a clear reading of the application says that ALL services intended to be rendered would need to be disclosed for public comment and evaluation.  (Disclosing all services ultimately helps evaluate the purpose of the TLD.)

I believe that the notion that an applicant can "skate through" by mentioning only the pre-approved services (and getting a faster approval for delegation by doing so) and then waiting to apply for the RSEP process later actually DECREASES transparency in the evaluation process and lessens the opportunity for public comment.  In the trade-off between (1) transparency for public comment purposes and (2) keeping business plans confidential at the time of application, I would favor transparency.  (I know RSEP may, in some cases, be subject to public comment but I don't think the public is really watching at that time.)

Others may have different opinions, but to my mind, it's clear that Question 23 of the 2012 Application calls for the applicant to list all proposed registry services and that is the fallback.

Thank you,
Anne

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:57 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes on Registry Services

[EXTERNAL]

Since I'm not sure I'll be able to join the call in a few hours that will discuss registry services, I will post here some WT4 and RA context regarding some of the comments:

- GPML
When this topic was being discussed in WT4, the then-current draft of what currently is the Fast-Track RSEP process (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-rsep-process-authorization-language-2019-06-14-en) included protected marks list services, but not mentioned as GPML. I used GPML as a token to represent that in order to avoid personalising to one specific registry that is known for providing such PML services... if that list was to be updated, it would read (BTAPPA, Registration Validation per Applicable Law, Registry Lock, IDN Languages) instead of (IDN Languages, GPML, BTAPPA), so one decision for the WG is whether to update the list or to remove the list altogether, since the idea is to reference the Fast-Track process anyways.
(This also covers a couple suggestions to add Registration Validation to that list)

- Pre-approved services
All 2012 registry agreements include a set of pre-approved services that are basic to registry operation, like DNS publication, accepting registrations etc.; so, the discussion is whether this list can be increased, not if such a list could exist. It already exists.

- Disclosure of new services
In 2012, there was no blocking in the registry agreement to use RSEPs later during the life of the TLD, and the RSEP site contains a number of RSEPs that were approved and incorporated new services into the registry agreements. Since revising the RSEP policy is outside of the WG purview, no SubPro policy can have any effect on that freedom of innovation. We can write anything someone wants in the SubPro policy and that won't change.

- ICANN Org interpretation
It seems ICANN Org misinterpreted the idea of pre-approved services; pre-approved services means that no registry service evaluation will be made for them, and any evaluation of those services could only happen in other contexts like Technical/Operational evaluation. It's not just a change of label for the process, it's not evaluating those services at all from a registry services perspective, but indeed possibly considering them in other angles of the evaluation.

- Overload of RSEP acronyms
Because RSEP is used to imply Registry Services Evaluation Procedure, Evaluation Process or Evaluation Policy depending on reference, the term is very loaded to the point that some comments said RSEP Policy shouldn't be changed. The use of RSEP in the WT4 output refers to the process, not to the policy that is used to evaluate new registry services after a TLD is contracted with ICANN.

- Moment of registry service evaluation
What's currently in the draft was an attempt to have the more transparency and freedom of innovation  as possible in the application, by allowing services that would only be applied after contract signing to be described by the applicant. Taking that out only causes less transparency; the more information is published, the more something can trigger application comments or objections.

Rubens

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

________________________________

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.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
________________________________
 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>