Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
Here are some figures that may be of interest for our discussion tomorrow. Avri had replied to my question about the basis fir her belief that the IGO PDP would be done before new gTLD delegation. She did not copy the ALAC, but has said it was an accidental omission and I am including her reply below. Current estimates that I have heard indicate that the first TLD agreements may be signed in the latter half of next year and be read for Sunrise soon thereafter (allowing trademark owners to protect their names) and general registration soon after. Avri's estimate is just a bit longer. Note however, that Sunrise and registration can start before the names enter the root. It is estimated that the absolute shortest time a PDP could take is 191 days (about 6 /12 months) from the time the Final Issue Report is released until the time the recommendations got to the Board). That presumes that all deliberations take place during the same 5 weeks that SG have to submit statements on their opinions (allowing no time to take those statements into account), the reports is written in a week, and there are no receiving action from the GNSO or Board. This is for a simple PDP with virtually no discussion needed to resolve the issue. The time from the request of an Issue Report (again with minimal delays) is 263 days or 9 months. The time for a more typical PDP is estimated at 1 year longer. These figures can be found as attachments to http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13099.html. To see what real PDPs have taken, see the other attachment. Note that all of these were done under the old PDP rules which allowed for a significantly shorter process. The shortest ones in recent history took 415 days. One added a clarification sentence to a reason for allowing a Registrar to deny a transfer (http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct08.shtml). The other, the PDP on Domain Tasting was resolved primarily by private discussions and two registries voluntarily implementing the "solution" which was then echoed by the PDP. There was very little discussion other than to identify an effective way of addressing the problem without unreasonably penalizing Registrars who were not participating in Tasting. The other two, far more substantive, took 2.4 to 3 years (as noted, according to the old, and more streamlined PDP rules). By any measure (if only based on the amount of discussion this issue has raised in the ALAC), the IGO protection issue is not an easy one where all parties will agree quickly. The only possible exception to this is if all parties come to the table believing that no additional protections are needed, and can QUICKLY address all of the process that is being included in the Issue Report. If indeed the PDP completes in record time, then the provisions of the compromise proposal of the RC/IOC DT would never kick in, since they would be replaced by whatever comes out of the PDP. Alan At 24/09/2012 12:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
PDP can be done in 9-12 months. New TLDs in root, not until end 13, beginning 14.
At 23/09/2012 09:05 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Avri,
Can you share your reasoning with us? Specifically, how long are you predicting the PDP will take from the time it is approved by Council, and when do you believe the first TLDs will enter their sunrise period accepting reservations for 2nd level names?
Alan
At 19/09/2012 09:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
Hi,
From the work of the IRTP-C which had 3 controversial and difficult technical questions, I have seen that by working weekly, we are closing in on a much quicker schedule. Also the historical data Alan shows is from before the new PDP structures were created.
Of course Alan might be right, past performance, though, is not proof of future performance. I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less. This is a prescription for a never ending PDP. On the other had if we go in with a mandate to work to the optimal schedule, I argue, there is a chance. Note, I did not call for the minimum 7 month possibility best case PDP scenario, I am estimating 9-12 months. I am also not estimating the optimal processing schedule for new gTLDs. While looking at schedule, I propose we also look at the speed of the new gTLD project and its ability to always take the longer time possible. I prose we also avoid planning on the shortest possible race to the root. I think that I am being moderate in my both estimates. Yes, my estimates make it close. Additionally, while I think it highly inappropriate for the Board, though within its by-laws prerogative, to take action before the PDP has started, I would not necessary have the same argument if the PDP had already made initial recommendations in draft report, for the Board to make an emergency decision based on the predicted outcome of a process that was in in its clean-up end game. Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Here are some figures that may be of interest for our discussion tomorrow. Avri had replied to my question about the basis fir her belief that the IGO PDP would be done before new gTLD delegation. She did not copy the ALAC, but has said it was an accidental omission and I am including her reply below.
Current estimates that I have heard indicate that the first TLD agreements may be signed in the latter half of next year and be read for Sunrise soon thereafter (allowing trademark owners to protect their names) and general registration soon after. Avri's estimate is just a bit longer. Note however, that Sunrise and registration can start before the names enter the root.
It is estimated that the absolute shortest time a PDP could take is 191 days (about 6 /12 months) from the time the Final Issue Report is released until the time the recommendations got to the Board). That presumes that all deliberations take place during the same 5 weeks that SG have to submit statements on their opinions (allowing no time to take those statements into account), the reports is written in a week, and there are no receiving action from the GNSO or Board. This is for a simple PDP with virtually no discussion needed to resolve the issue. The time from the request of an Issue Report (again with minimal delays) is 263 days or 9 months.
The time for a more typical PDP is estimated at 1 year longer. These figures can be found as attachments to http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13099.html.
To see what real PDPs have taken, see the other attachment. Note that all of these were done under the old PDP rules which allowed for a significantly shorter process.
The shortest ones in recent history took 415 days. One added a clarification sentence to a reason for allowing a Registrar to deny a transfer (http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct08.shtml). The other, the PDP on Domain Tasting was resolved primarily by private discussions and two registries voluntarily implementing the "solution" which was then echoed by the PDP. There was very little discussion other than to identify an effective way of addressing the problem without unreasonably penalizing Registrars who were not participating in Tasting.
The other two, far more substantive, took 2.4 to 3 years (as noted, according to the old, and more streamlined PDP rules).
By any measure (if only based on the amount of discussion this issue has raised in the ALAC), the IGO protection issue is not an easy one where all parties will agree quickly. The only possible exception to this is if all parties come to the table believing that no additional protections are needed, and can QUICKLY address all of the process that is being included in the Issue Report.
If indeed the PDP completes in record time, then the provisions of the compromise proposal of the RC/IOC DT would never kick in, since they would be replaced by whatever comes out of the PDP.
Alan
At 24/09/2012 12:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
PDP can be done in 9-12 months. New TLDs in root, not until end 13, beginning 14.
At 23/09/2012 09:05 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Avri,
Can you share your reasoning with us? Specifically, how long are you predicting the PDP will take from the time it is approved by Council, and when do you believe the first TLDs will enter their sunrise period accepting reservations for 2nd level names?
Alan
At 19/09/2012 09:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Avri Doria
One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not afford to not participate actively to try to get more. Alan At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less.
Dear All, I have *one simple* question. Why was my comment (submissions) removed from the Wiki? https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg The context has now changed to addressing the Board and not the GNSO IOC/RC Draft Team. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not afford to not participate actively to try to get more.
Alan
At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Hi, Don't know. I did not remove anything except the notes about placeholders. I did have some editing problems at one point but don't see how that would delete anything. "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I have *one simple* question. Why was my comment (submissions) removed from the Wiki? https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg
The context has now changed to addressing the Board and not the GNSO IOC/RC Draft Team.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not afford to not participate actively to try to get more.
Alan
At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Avri Doria
Frankly guys I am alarmed. I disagree with the introductory statement made on the wiki and am concerned with the swift change of context as this is absolutely contrary to what was put to the ALAC. I am alarmed at the *censorship* taking place within the ALAC itself if it indeed is taking place. I am of course optimistic and hoping that this was a technical error. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Don't know. I did not remove anything except the notes about placeholders.
I did have some editing problems at one point but don't see how that would delete anything.
"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I have *one simple* question. Why was my comment (submissions) removed from the Wiki? https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg
The context has now changed to addressing the Board and not the GNSO IOC/RC Draft Team.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not afford to not participate actively to try to get more.
Alan
At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Avri Doria
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
That sounds very accusatory. And after I just said I did nothing, you presume censorship. Hmmm. As for my draft, that its a first statement of where I thought we were going. If the alac wishes to say something different, please do so. It its not for me to advise the alac on what it should say. "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Frankly guys I am alarmed. I disagree with the introductory statement made on the wiki and am concerned with the swift change of context as this is absolutely contrary to what was put to the ALAC.
I am alarmed at the *censorship* taking place within the ALAC itself if it indeed is taking place. I am of course optimistic and hoping that this was a technical error.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Don't know. I did not remove anything except the notes about placeholders.
I did have some editing problems at one point but don't see how that would delete anything.
"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I have *one simple* question. Why was my comment (submissions) removed from the Wiki? https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg
The context has now changed to addressing the Board and not the GNSO IOC/RC Draft Team.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not afford to not participate actively to try to get more.
Alan
At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Avri Doria
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Avri Doria
@ Avri, I am not accusing you. All I am concerned about is the context has changed. I assume that we can input our comments into the "comment" field etc. I have issues with the Overview which changes the context in which the call for ALAC feedback was made and has limited our options to a response to the Board. I have no issues with people holding diverse opinions and people are free to write their comments on the matter etc etc. To summarise, I am concerned about:- 1. removal of my comments from the Wiki; 2. and the change in context from what was originally put to the ALAC; 3. removing option to direct comments/submissions to the GNSO IOC/RC Draft Team On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
That sounds very accusatory. And after I just said I did nothing, you presume censorship. Hmmm.
As for my draft, that its a first statement of where I thought we were going. If the alac wishes to say something different, please do so. It its not for me to advise the alac on what it should say.
"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Frankly guys I am alarmed. I disagree with the introductory statement made on the wiki and am concerned with the swift change of context as this is absolutely contrary to what was put to the ALAC.
I am alarmed at the *censorship* taking place within the ALAC itself if it indeed is taking place. I am of course optimistic and hoping that this was a technical error.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Don't know. I did not remove anything except the notes about placeholders.
I did have some editing problems at one point but don't see how that would delete anything.
"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I have *one simple* question. Why was my comment (submissions) removed from the Wiki? https://community.icann.org/x/wowoAg
The context has now changed to addressing the Board and not the GNSO IOC/RC Draft Team.
Kind Regards, Sala
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not afford to not participate actively to try to get more.
Alan
At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Avri Doria
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Avri Doria
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
I am not aware of anything being deleted, certainly not deliberately. We just don't work that way. And I am extremely wary of any hasty attempts at a logical leap between deletion and censorship, without any evidence of intent or even any central control of an issue. In any case, the dual strategy -- of participating in the GNSO processes *and* having something more overreaching to say to the Board -- is still in play as far as I'm aware. If there is any indication that options have been "removed" I for one am also not aware of that. - Evan On 25 September 2012 01:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
@ Avri, I am not accusing you.
All I am concerned about is the context has changed. I assume that we can input our comments into the "comment" field etc.
I have issues with the Overview which changes the context in which the call for ALAC feedback was made and has limited our options to a response to the Board. I have no issues with people holding diverse opinions and people are free to write their comments on the matter etc etc.
To summarise, I am concerned about:-
1. removal of my comments from the Wiki; 2. and the change in context from what was originally put to the ALAC; 3. removing option to direct comments/submissions to the GNSO IOC/RC Draft Team
My comments are inline. On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I am not aware of anything being deleted, certainly not deliberately. We just don't work that way.
And I am extremely wary of any hasty attempts at a logical leap between deletion and censorship, without any evidence of intent or even any central control of an issue.
I did say, "I am of course *optimistic* and hoping that this was a technical error. "
In any case, the dual strategy -- of participating in the GNSO processes
*and* having something more overreaching to say to the Board -- is still in play as far as I'm aware. If there is any indication that options have been "removed" I for one am also not aware of that.
I am glad that we still have the dual strategy on the table for discussion.
- Evan
On 25 September 2012 01:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com> wrote:
@ Avri, I am not accusing you.
All I am concerned about is the context has changed. I assume that we can input our comments into the "comment" field etc.
I have issues with the Overview which changes the context in which the call for ALAC feedback was made and has limited our options to a response to the Board. I have no issues with people holding diverse opinions and people are free to write their comments on the matter etc etc.
To summarise, I am concerned about:-
1. removal of my comments from the Wiki; 2. and the change in context from what was originally put to the ALAC; 3. removing option to direct comments/submissions to the GNSO IOC/RC Draft Team
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Dear All, I would also like to apologise if I have caused offence or hurt people by insinuating "censorship", please forgive me. Sincerely, Sala
Hi, my point its that there are those who would give far less, so they might have to satisfice with what they are given. Also I indicated that if it looks like the PDP its tending toward less, or perhaps for one and not the other, then they have nothing to lose other than what they have been granted through the charity of the board. The most important point its that the special protections given by the board to both become a base we will not be able to get below, it its the starting point and not one of the possible ending points. Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
One short comment here. I do not agree at all. The interim protection is giving them SO much less than what they want that they could not afford to not participate actively to try to get more.
Alan
At 24/09/2012 10:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less.
Avri Doria
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Evan Leibovitch -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro