Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] CoCCA
- To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] CoCCA
- From: Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:49:23 -0700
We will extend the invitation to other registry service providers
(including ccTLD operators as Sebastian suggested)s to join our pool
of potential supporters. Thanks to Alex for his initial suggestion:
Propose: Propose that ICANN maintains a list of existing large
registries recommended to offer back-office services to such
applicants – avoids costs multiplications, encourages more
applications, optimises on the use of existing infrastructure,
On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:
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.
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
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.
VP Client Services
+1 509 899 3161