Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] CoCCA

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

All,

I think it's a major win for our applicants that CoCCA is prepared to consider 
technical support - per below.

I can't think of an infrastructure option that is more suited to the type of 
applicants we're discussing.

Thanks for this Elaine.

RT


> 
> R
> On May 31, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Elaine Pruis wrote:
> 
>> Below are the responses response from Garth Miller, Director of CoCCA, 
>> regarding incorporating disadvantaged applicants identified by our criteria 
>> into their Charter.  I will follow this email with another email outlining a 
>> proposal to at least utilize the CoCCA model of shared services and 
>> economies of scale for our applicants, as the waters around CoCCA are a bit 
>> murky because of licensing and no firm definition yet as to which  "type" of 
>> applicant might fit the profile.
>> 
>>> CoCCA would consider expanding the charter to include certain gTLD 
>>> applicants that meet the Working Group's established criteria?
>> 
>> 
>> "As far as helping disadvantaged gTLD applicants sure, happy to help small 
>> not-for-profit, non commercial applicants directly and treat them as we do 
>> ccTLDs if they are not commercially of interest to M+M. "
>> 
>> (CoCCA has issued an exclusive license of their registry software for new 
>> gTLDs to M+M, so use of that system for our applicants would have to be 
>> cleared through M+M as well as CoCCA).
>> 
>> 
>>> 1.      Do they see anything in the DAG Technical Evaluation Criteria  -- 
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-evaluation-criteria-clean-04oct09-en.pdf
>>>   --  that would prevent them from achieving a passing score of 22 points?
>>> 
>> 
>> My first response was that DNSSEC development might not be complete.  That 
>> was incorrect. 
>> From Garth Miller, Director of CoCCA:
>> 
>> "As far as DNSEC  "DNSEC deployment" is a DNS issue - we don't provide DNS 
>> services, signing the zone is trivial and we do that. The latest versions 
>> (of the registry software) support the EPP RFC's for DNSSEC.
>> 
>>> 2.     Would they be willing to assist our applicants in writing their 
>>> technical proposals?   (noting that if they were assisting multiple 
>>> applicants in our Category they would essentially be writing the same 
>>> technical proposal multiple times)
>> 
>> "As far as helping with the gTLD applications that is not really something 
>> we are positioned to to, but the technical proposals would be cut and paste 
>> if M+M came up with a template for them."
>> 
>> --A proposal to provide discounted technical application assistance and 
>> shared registry platform services for disadvantaged applicants is being 
>> developed and considered within M+M.
>> 
>> Elaine
>