Thanks Jeff. That makes sense. I just recall reading that the issue was the “rate of change to the root” and not necessarily the # of TLDs added “per year”. Hard to get a handle on what that means. Maybe PTI could be helpful though. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D396A9.7A845A50] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:00 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Anne, One of the issues we have is that there is no policy on this. There was a declaration by the ICANN Board before the last round that the number of new gTLD delegations be limited to no more than 1000 per calendar year. That was not a policy decision. We still have the “Chicken and the egg” problem here. If there is a limit on the number of delegations per year, that will certainly influence the policies and procedures we set. On the other hand, the policies and procedures that we set may limit the number of delegations that can happen in any given year. At this point, I think we need to determine what our policies should be in an ideal world without any limits to the number of delegations that could occur in a given year (assuming that ICANN Org will staff up to meet those requirements). Once we present those policy recommendations, if we get information from ICANN Org or elsewhere that those recommendations will result in limits, we can address at that point. Does everyone agree? Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D396A9.7A5FBB50] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
