Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] CoCCA

[Elaine Pruis <elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Richard,

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,
Cheers
Elaine
On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 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
Elaine Pruis
VP Client Services
elaine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+1 509 899 3161