ABCEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
Topic 39: Registry System Testing

Description of Difference: No substantive differences, but minor differences include the following:

- Structural and grammatical changes made for ease of understanding.
2
#ContributorCommentLeadership CommentsCompletion Status
3
Support Output(s) as written
4
1ARTICLE 19We welcome Recommendation 39.1 and Recommendation 39.4 that, “...The Working Group affirms existing practice that it is up to a registrar to determine which gTLDs it carries…” and “...Registry System Testing (RST) must be efficient…”
Our position through the ICANN CCWP-HR has been that all registrars should provide Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) as part of their service and implement DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE).We note that these recommendations and the application of these technical standards would protect registrants’ right to privacy.
5
The following contributors did not provide additional comments: Ramtin (Individual); NORID AS; Anthony Lee (Individual); Thomas Barrett (Individual); NCSG; ZHOU, LiGuo (Individual); Swiss Government OFCOM; GoDaddy Registry; Brand Registry Group, Inc; GeoTLD Group; Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC); PETILLION Law Firm; Business Constituency (BC); INTA; ARTICLE 19; GMO Brights Consulting Inc.; Global Brand Owner and Consumer Protection Coalition (GBOC); InfoNetworks LLC
6
No opinion
7
The following contributors did not provide additional comments: Clement Genty (Individual); Wei Wang (Individual); Yi Zhang (Individual); Xiaodong Lee (Individual); Kun Liu (Individual); Internet Architecture Board; Afnic; gTLDs Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG); dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG; Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH; WIPO; Dotzon GmbH; ccNSO Council; Registars Stakeholder Group (RrSG); Internet Governance Project; ALAC
8
Do not support certain aspects or all of the Output(s)
9
The following contributors did not provide additional comments: Ramtin (Individual)
10
New information or interests that the Working Group has not considered
11
1Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC)The IPC supports the recommended Registry System tests, which must:

● Cover readiness for DNSSEC;
● Be efficient, including pre-approval of IDN tables, and avoidance of duplicative testing from registry services pre-evaluation.
Noted.
12
2ICANN orgRecommendation 39.1:
The PDP WG may wish to consider including “and its supporting/subcontracted Registry Service Providers (RSPs).” That is to say, the registry system tests should demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry operator or its supporting RSP, as required.
Recommendation 39.4:
The PDP WG may wish to consider providing additional guidance, such as metrics, so ICANN org can maintain RST efficiency according to the PDP WG’s guidelines.
Implementation Guidance 39.5:
Implementation Guidance 39.5 recommends removal of “tables that are pre-vetted by the community” from testing. ICANN org understands community-vetted tables as reference Label Generation Rules (LGR) and not IDN tables approved for a specific registry and/or published in the IANA IDN Practices Repository.
The reference LGRs are developed in consultation with the community, reviewed for security and stability concerns, and will be regularly updated and maintained with ongoing feedback from the community and updates to the Unicode standard. Some IDN tables approved earlier and/or published in the IANA IDN Practices Repository may have security and stability issues and therefore may not qualify as “pre-vetted” due to these considerations. If the PDP WG agrees, it could clarify by rephrasing “tables that are pre-vetted by the community” to “reference LGRs.”
General Comments:
ICANN org appreciates the PDP WG’s aim to increase efficiency in the overall RST portion of the application process. It may also be helpful for the PDP WG to take into account that certain redundancies in testing are intentional, and serve to support overall security and stability. The PDP WG’s recommendations for improving RST efficiency rely heavily on the successful implementation of the RSP pre-evaluation program, therefore ensuring effectiveness of that program is critical.		Rec 39.1: Good clarification.

Rec 39.4: Metrics -- refer to IRT.

Rec 39.5: Same issue on "pre-vetted" -- make the change here and in IDNs.
Also a good clarification.

General Comments: Noted.		Recommendation 39.1:
ACTION ITEM: Include “and its supporting/subcontracted Registry Service Providers (RSPs).” That is to say, the registry system tests should demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry operator or its supporting RSP, as required.

Implementation Guidance 39.5
ACTION ITEM: Clarify by rephrasing “tables that are pre-vetted by the community” to “reference LGRs.”
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100