Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:12
Please mute your lines if not speaking
Julie Bisland
46:12
@Jeff: could you ask who has joined with phone number ending in -998
Olga Cavalli
47:22
Hi apologies for being late this is Olga
Donna Austin, Neustar
48:11
Is Jeff's audio scratchy or is it just me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:36
Audio is perfect for me via the Zoom
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:09
Other than the BG noise of course
Donna Austin, Neustar
49:13
thanks Cheryl, I'm on Zoom too
taylor bentley (canada)
50:07
I am the 613 number. was just muted on my headset but now muted on the system too. thanks
Julie Bisland
50:10
@all: I’m muting lines as new members are joining, so if you raise your hand to speak, please remember to Unmute yourself
Donna Austin, Neustar
50:16
I don't think the two are related.
Julie Bisland
50:23
Thank you, Taylor!
Jim Prendergast
50:27
wonder if it relates to future applications by current operators?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:27
Neither do I
Donna Austin, Neustar
50:49
It's really a registry operator issue rather than an RSP issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:51
I had assumed so @JIm
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:34
but that again is just a reiteration of Security being an issue not an RSP Pre approval issue as such
Jim Prendergast
52:01
I know we have some GAC participants but they may notbe able to speak for "the GAC" might be worth a clarifying question?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:16
Exactly @Jim and a clarifying question would go Secretariate
christopher wilkinson
55:22
¿DAAR?
Jim Prendergast
56:11
https://www.icann.org/octo-ssr/daar
Julie Hedlund
56:38
ICANN 's Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) project is a system for studying and reporting on domain name registration and security threat
Justine Chew
58:35
Agree with @Donna on DAAR.
Jim Prendergast
59:13
there may be a cataloging by ICANN but they are not made public
Paul McGrady
59:50
Would a public complaint log be helpful? Not all complaints have a basis.
Paul McGrady
01:02:25
+1 Donna. The preapproval process wouldn't be mandatory and would not be a bar to ultimately being approved as part of an application.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:03:49
How do you manage that from a commercial in confidence standpoint? I don't believe the intention was that the pre-approval process would be public. You are either approved or not.
christopher wilkinson
01:08:43
@Paul - the actual degree of concentration in the RSP market clearly exposes the problem. Disapproving an RSP that has already been approved could create issues with other Registries
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:08:56
The pre-approval is you are pre-approved or you are not. If you provide back end services for a registry operator and the RO breaches SLAs there will be consequences for the RSP, but those consequences are determined by the RO.
Paul McGrady
01:11:37
@Donna -agree. These are private contracts. Mechanisms for un-preapproval don't really have a place.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:11:47
We're on the same page Jeff.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:14:00
Greg makes an excellent point, the intent of the pre-approval is to overcome the repetitive nature of the technical evaluation experienced in the 2012 round.
Justine Chew
01:14:20
@Jeff, could you remind us as to what happens if an RO, post delegation, changes is SP to one which is not an RSP (however likely or unlikely that may seem)?
Justine Chew
01:14:54
*its (not is)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:06
Indeed @Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:15:08
I think Kathy's point may be that if a pre-approved RSP is "delisted", the public should be advised. That is not unreasonable.
Justine Chew
01:15:15
as in .... "changes its SP ..."
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:15:20
Its not a seal of approval.
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:15:32
It is just the fact tht they passed the evaluation
Greg Shatan
01:16:45
Maybe we just call them “Pre-Evaluated” RSPs.
Jim Prendergast
01:16:49
@Anne - its less of an issue with Rounds but if we move to a stady state of applicatons - removal is importan
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:54
We are creating a "Pre-Approval Program" (high level agreement)
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:18:44
But the program is nothing more than going through the evaluation process earlier in time than when others go through it
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:50
It is a certification
Steve Chan
01:19:30
Jeff, hand raised
Jim Prendergast
01:19:40
if a pre approved RSP starts to display perfomance issues that lead to EBERo triggering events, should they still be considered "pre-approved'?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:19:43
QUESTIOIN: 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
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:14
Exactly @Jeff it allows one to SHOW that they have and will pass the same test(s) that will be applied anyway in Tech evaluation if the applicant did not utilise such a Pre-Approved RSP
avri doria
01:20:32
if a new test is created do they all have to go through the test again? are tere=h any liabilities incurred in having someone lited as passing who no longer does?
Sarah Langstone
01:20:55
@jim and predelegation tests I presume
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:13
new hand
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:16
I ubderstood any test Pre needes to be in absolute parity with any current Tech Test applied
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:36
@Jim, I think 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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:37
Jeff: can you read JIm and Ann's comments
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:58
good question
Justine Chew
01:22:38
@Greg, I think @Donna just answered your question.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:23:57
@Jeff - you are setting the bar too low. Periodic validation may be the solution.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:21
fair point @Greg 'nomenclature counts' so if "Approval" is inflamatory term another should be considered
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:25:19
It seems that you can pre-approve for basic RO services but it would also seem that the RO would have to be evaluated in relation to the specific proposed services in the TLD for its capabilities to execute the proposed services if these exceed basic services that we currently evaluate. For example, if an RO is pre-approved to provide services for domains proceeded by a dot, would the same RO be equally qualified to operate a dotless domain if a waiver is granted? Would any RO be qualified to execute services where a name collision mitigation plan is a condition to approval of the granting of the TLD? Doesn't a tech evaluation have to happen at the time of the evaluation of the application and its proposed services?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:25:49
@Jamie, the RO would have to do due diligence.
Greg Shatan
01:26:18
@Jamie, this could also be dealt with in the RO-RSP contract.
Sarah Langstone
01:26:53
Jeff are you suggesting that RSPs who are pre accredited are prohibited from pricing their own services?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:55
As you would in the establishment of any service provision @Donna
Greg Shatan
01:27:15
They can represent that they work with x number of applicants regardless of”pre-approval,” if it’s true.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:28:38
Agree Jeff - any new services proposed require a "second look" at the pre-approved RSP.
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:42
Good summary!
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:50
A lot of questions!
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:30:51
@Jeff .. I agree with providing protections to the applicant
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:34
We also need to talk about protections for the Registry Operators who use the pre-approved RSP.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:52
Presumably all of their registries have problems -- collectively.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:37
Yes @Donna that goes to @Gregs point as well , not an enduring time but a time frame
Greg Shatan
01:32:52
@Donna, I agree — the pre-evaluation has no more meaning than the evaluation, once it’s been completed.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:35:07
Jim makes a good point that ICANN Compliance would have to be involved in relation to "delisting" a pre-approved RSP.
Greg Shatan
01:35:32
Query: What if anything would the RSP need to agree to in order to get the pre-evaluation status? For example, promise to maintain the standards that got them there? This could be a condition of submitting the application and not a separate agreement.
Sarah Langstone
01:37:15
@jeff - sorry I wasnt clear. I was referring to your comment that RSPs wouldn’t charge customers for the provision of technical answers which implied that the RSP approval program would RSP impact fees
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:38:23
oops...if I said that.....I eant they would not owe ICANN evaluation fees.
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:38:31
meant
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:00
Thanks @Martin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:04
KISS
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:40:09
Benchmarking against other industries, a need to requalify every one year interval as "pre-approved' would not be out of line.
Kathy Kleiman
01:40:40
+1 Anne
Phil Buckingham
01:41:00
Question : Does this mean that there will no longer be a pass score on the technical questions. So we have a pass or fail ? What constitutes a fail ?
Kavouss Arasteh
01:41:32
I have to drop in few mints
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:43:48
Being a pre-approved RSP will be a huge marketing advantage to the RSP. Applicants will want to engage a pre-approved RSP in order to get to market faster.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:08
This indeed was never meant to be accreditation
Greg Shatan
01:45:08
This needs to be framed very narrowly. Being pre-evaluated only means that they have passed a technical evaluation in the last X months. Evaluating an RSP that was just recently evaluated is a waste of time, money and effort and would be a form of “throttling.”
Martin Sutton
01:46:02
Agree Donna, the intention was to simplify/remove duplication without increasing risk
Christopher Wilkinson
01:46:17
@ Donna - I think we shall need a List, especially if we get new Registries in segments that are not currently served.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:46:55
As we have noted, a "round" can last several years.
Greg Shatan
01:47:10
Maybe we should remove the timing advantage that would come with pre-evaluation?
Martin Sutton
01:47:25
Will the evaluation change during a round or just between rounds?
Martin Sutton
01:47:54
If the evaluation is static during a round, why repeat?
Jim Prendergast
01:48:05
old hand
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:48:25
As far as I know there is no consensus on the "steady state" FCFS phase of the next window. IPC is still discussing that issue.
Greg Shatan
01:49:09
@Martin, how long can we depend on an evaluated RSP to be capable of passing an evaluation (and thus don’t need to be evaluated at that time)?
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:49:23
We never said the steady state was first come first served @Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:50:15
@Jeff - how do you defined "steady state"?
Martin Sutton
01:51:29
@Greg - in 2012 round, many passed evaluation years before they were delegated...
Kathy Kleiman
01:51:44
Jamie's identified key issues- still need to be resolved
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:23
What do we do with applicants who lose their RSP...
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:52:23
@jeff - When did the full WG achieve consensus on "steady state"?
Greg Shatan
01:52:26
@Martin, then I guess the assumption was that the RSPs would retain their quality for that period of time, subject to pre-delegation testing.
Martin Sutton
01:52:45
@ Greg - guess so
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:45
I like the suggestion
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:53:10
OKay - thank you Jeff.
Greg Shatan
01:54:26
Falling off the pre-evaluation list would not cause an applicant to lose their RSP. The evaluation box stays checked, whether it comes from a pre-evaluation or from an evaluation at that time.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:54:57
Can you restate Jeff?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:55:17
Prnicple: Please write it down in chat Jeff. Anotther principle: The period of pre-approval status should not be overly long.
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:38
huh?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:59
The initial statement was clearer than the restatement
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:56:07
How long a pre-approval lasts.
Greg Shatan
01:56:11
Hand
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:56:12
@Jeff, I don't think your principle is consistent with the rySG comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:12
:-)
Steve Chan
01:56:23
We have transcripts :)
Jim Prendergast
01:56:28
we should have transcripts -
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:56:38
Transcripts don't mean a lot when you are asking for agreement to a principle in real time on the call.
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:43
Applicants should know of any changes in results of a pre-approval program and they should have time to change RSPs, if they desire.
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:01
My attempt to type Jeff's statement -- which seems a logical and sound summary.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:58:27
@Jeff, if you want to add that proviso that would work.
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:58:55
@Donna - I am trynig to get principles for a pre-approval period. Then we can get to details like that one
Paul McGrady
02:00:20
Any pre-approval program needs to be less hassle than it is worth, or else no one will bother and just rely on being able to tell folks that they were successful in the 2012 Round.
Steve Chan
02:00:33
FYI, staff tried to capture the principle.
Paul McGrady
02:02:17
In other words, we need to keep it simple
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:27
yup
Greg Shatan
02:03:27
Wouldn’t every RSP become “pre-approved” after they passed their first evaluation????
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
02:03:45
@Greg - Sort of......
Christopher Wilkinson
02:04:00
If the Registry integrates the RSP function, is it pre-proved is it subject to the contract with ICANN? 2.
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:04:34
We did at one point, talk about the prospect that an applicant would not be required to nominate their RSP until after they had passed the other elements of the application process and evaluation. What's the status of that idea?
Greg Shatan
02:04:41
Or should pre-evaluation have a higher standard — one that test for the ability of the RSP to maintain their level of service? (Or is this already part of the evaluation process?)
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
02:05:54
BEcause any amount of time at this point is a guess, I would love for us to agree on the principal and leave specifical timing until later
Greg Shatan
02:06:41
Why wouldn’t an RO have the opportunity to change RSPs at any time, for any reason? Does that even require a policy?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
02:06:52
Maybe we should ask for public comment on the time of duration for the pre-approval?
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:06:54
The pre-approval process is a test. It does not mean that the pre-approved RSP immediately goes into operation, so I don't see how any testing in addition to the original could be done.
Martin Sutton
02:07:26
@Greg - RO can change RSP at any time, as Trang pointed out, that happened throughout the last round
Martin Sutton
02:08:19
And an RO should be monitoring capabilities of their supplier and if they identify a risk, they can pro-actively do something about it
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
02:08:23
Then we ahve to say the periods that appear in the public comment when we establish the principle.
Greg Shatan
02:08:31
Any new RSP that wanted to get in would eat the costs of that first evaluation.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
02:08:39
@Kathy .. i would put focus in what you said on the point that if anything changes with the RSP that ultimately effects the cost for the applicant then I believe a protection needs to exist. As an applicant I would not want to find out midstream that I need to pay for an evaluation I was not expecting to pay for because I chose a pre-approved RSP.
Sarah Langstone
02:08:40
I am not sure ICANN wants to get in the middle of Registry Operators and the agreements they have with independent subcontractors vis a vis the RSP preapproval process
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:09:06
Time Check
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
02:09:22
Time period should not be open-ended in the statement of the principle since the public comment says 4 mons, 6 mos, and one year.
Greg Shatan
02:10:16
Jamie: Once the pre-evaluation is accepted in a particular application, it should not be subject to revocation —any more than an actual evaluation is subject to revocation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:10:27
Thanks everyone lots of good discussion / progress toda
Paul McGrady
02:10:29
Thanks everyone. This was a productive call.
Greg Shatan
02:10:31
Pre-evaluation is not a “license”.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:10:33
Bye for now
avri doria
02:10:33
bye
Annebeth Lange
02:10:34
Very interesting discussion, fully agree that the principles are the most important. Bye for now.