Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
30:17
hi everyone
Andrea Glandon
31:08
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:21
at 0200 you don't want to see too much more of me I made an early cameo appearance before we started recording... really that will do...
Andrea Glandon
34:12
Yes, Monday 23 November at 20:00 UTC
Emily Barabas
35:05
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020
Anne Aikman-Scalese
42:47
What Donna is saying makes sense - personal view.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:59
Noted Flip we can include that in what we send t the list as well
Flip Petillion
46:05
good point Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
46:53
My take is that an applicant could change from a named RSP to "will use a pre-approved RSP". It would be an applicant change request but with a strong presumption of approval.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
47:20
Would Applicant check a box - e.g. keep RSP confidential?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:30
an 'if they so desire' option to identify then @Donna?
Paul McGrady
47:31
That is interesting Donna
Annebeth Lange
47:43
Interesting thoughts, Donna
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:02
Is there anything that would prevent an applicant from simply naming a pre-evaluated RSP without actually having contracted the RSP in advance of its application?
Donna Austin
49:11
and that did happen in 2012, I just don't recall the details of the process
Jim Prendergast
50:28
Now you can hire Jeff to do the negotiating for you
Jeffrey Neuman
50:48
thanks @jim for the commercial
Jim Prendergast
52:30
I wouldn't put too much weight into having an agreement with an RSP as an intent to operate. When you operate an agreeemtn for one or 2 strings, maybe but when its for 10, 20 50 or 200, its a one time deal.
Rubens Kuhl
58:35
My recollection is the same as Jeff's.
Annebeth Lange
58:42
Mine too
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:51
yup
Rubens Kuhl
59:37
But we also recommend RST focusing on actual testing instead of assessing documents.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
59:52
exactly @Rubens
christopher wilkinson
01:01:32
The reference to “5. Article 19” needs clarification. There has been more than one Article 19 on the Internet.
Jim Prendergast
01:01:39
is it meant to relieve applicants from having to go through PDT multiple times or RSPs from having to go through it multiple times?
Rubens Kuhl
01:01:51
RST has some per-string tests like DNS that indeed have to be done each time.
Donna Austin
01:03:06
Judgement call by who Alan?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:43
aspects is a good term @Alan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:27
Thanks @Martin noted
Annebeth Lange
01:05:51
Good point @ Martin
Donna Austin
01:06:21
So if PDT is required the RSP will need to be known at the time of submitting the application in order to complete the evaluation process, no?
Rubens Kuhl
01:06:46
PDT is after contracting.
Donna Austin
01:07:11
Okay.
Rubens Kuhl
01:09:33
But if new evaluation criteria appears, that could lead to an update of pre-evaluation.
Rubens Kuhl
01:10:04
Not in a position to speak today.
Rubens Kuhl
01:10:10
Nothing in the middle.
Donna Austin
01:10:17
I agree with Jeff.
Paul McGrady
01:14:56
Jeff is a big nerd.
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:18
ICANN Org also suggested ditching scores in its own assessment.
Donna Austin
01:21:29
Comfortable with this being IG
martinsutton
01:21:50
No objection
Annebeth Lange
01:22:01
Not from me either
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:01
great thanks
Rubens Kuhl
01:22:54
This comment on CQ is not surprising, but the difference between their instance and the community one is well established.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:43
Thanks @Rubens
Phil Buckingham
01:24:44
I agree Jeff .
Rubens Kuhl
01:24:59
Agree with Jeff and Phil.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:09
noted
Donna Austin
01:25:22
on clarifying questions: ICANN should have the discretion to redact information they consider confidential. I think the intent of the publishing the CQs was transparency and potentially giving other applicants a 'heads up'
Rubens Kuhl
01:27:36
We established that national law would base whether such certification is binding.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:52
Are there any other point people want to discuss from the input we got on this topic?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:15
great
Emily Barabas
01:28:24
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YimiR8dKA2F76QO_36hfDRCFE7-l5syuQ2zAKSn5rH8/edit#gid=1163822586
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:55
It covers DNSSEC signature of the zone, but does not cover acceptance of DNSSEC signatures from registrars.
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:04
Because it doesn't test EPP at all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:43
your so quick @Rubens … Thanks :-)
Paul McGrady
01:33:09
Can Jeff get some praise for this call? He knows this stuff cold. Great job guiding this tech heavy discussion Jeff.
Karen Lentz
01:33:36
+1
martinsutton
01:33:43
+1 Paul, impressive!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:09
so we need to start looking to developing final text for our report this will be an ongoing need of homework from now on... so you can raise issues to the list and of course in calls (we will make a short Agenda item to allow any such issues to be elevated to the record for notice
Donna Austin
01:34:11
An idea on PDT: perhaps it be done on a timeline basis that provides that an RSP is only required to submit to testing no more than once every three months and this will be decided by the PDT queue.
Annebeth Lange
01:34:13
+1 Paul, Jeff impresses me. (Not only today!)
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:55
Donna, for per-string tests that wouldn't cut it.
Donna Austin
01:36:02
I would welcome clarity on what PDT is to encompass.
Rubens Kuhl
01:36:51
Will review it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:03
Thank you
Flip Petillion
01:37:13
thx all !
Annebeth Lange
01:37:53
Thanks all, and have a nice weekend! Stay healthy!
martinsutton
01:37:55
Thx all