[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes on Registry Services

Thu Sep 5 22:48:01 UTC 2019

I have the following from IPC President Brian Winterfeldt:

Dear Anne,

Thank you for reaching out for clarification on the IPC position, as stated in its prior public comments, regarding disclosure of registry services.  As far as I am aware, the IPC position on this matter has not changed since those comments were filed.  Essentially, the IPC feels it is important for all prospective and reasonably foreseeable registry services associated with a particular TLD to be disclosed at the time of application, and included in the application evaluation process.  This will ensure TLD applications are as complete as possible, improves transparency, and should make the evaluation process more efficient in comparison to relying on piecemeal post-application RSEPs to evaluate additional registry services.

I hope this is helpful, and I certainly welcome additional input from other IPC members on this subject.

Best regards,

Brian
IPC President

________________________________
[https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/>

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Principal
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>
Washington, DC  20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>
brian at winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian at winterfeldt.law>
+1 202 903 4422

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 3:44 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes on Registry Services

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________

Em 5 de set de 2019, à(s) 18:37:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> escreveu:

Thanks Jeff.   I have followed up with the IPC pursuant to the "Action Item" from the call.

My understanding is that RSEP jurisdiction includes proposing new services and involves a 15 day "preliminary determination" period.  If ICANN org determines that the registry service does not involve significant Security and Stability implications or raise "significant competition issues" , the proposed new service can remain "confidential" and  the Registry Operator is free to deploy the new service after the 15 day period when ICANN determines no such issues are involved.  Hence, if I were a registry, I would rather have that discussion and determination made with ICANN Org than via public comment.    A description of the RSEP “preliminary determination” process is pasted below along with a link to the RSEP “workflow”.  Please let me know if the text on the ICANN website is somehow incorrect.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rsep-process-workflow-14jun19-en.pdf

The text on the workflow states what is seen by registries that an RSEP is published while ICANN does security, stability and competition review.
It's only unpublished during completeness check, but as soon as it deemed to have all elements for a decision to make, it's published while ICANN makes such determination.

This can be seen in https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en : there are two requests by ZACR for Registry Lock in African TLDs there are listed as "ICANN Review". Everyone can see what those requests are and help ICANN make a determination.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190905/942b88be/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5862 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190905/942b88be/image001-0001.png>