Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it?
I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it? ________________________________ 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.
Thanks Anne. Dear all, Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review: ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Best, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it? ________________________________ 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.
Dear All, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow. But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”” I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal? Kind regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn<https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>. DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Anne. Dear all, Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review: ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Best, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it? ________________________________ 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.
Hi Katrin. I see your point re “further work be done”. It just struck me that we have not actually stated any recommendation about the rate of delegation and that we don’t know as a Working Group what that rate should be. All we know is that from a technical standpoint, both RRSAC and SSAC have said that it is not the overall 1,000 cap that is the best indicator of stability. Can we just ask SSAC and RSSAC to clarify what rate of delegation seems appropriate, e.g. adding X number of new Top Level Domains per month? Thank you for catching this. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 6:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow. But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”” I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal? Kind regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn<https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>. DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Anne. Dear all, Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review: ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Best, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it? ________________________________ 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.
Dear All, I will not be able to participate in the call, but if we ask SSAC and RSSAC about - "what number is the limit", is should go with the words "please provide factually based formula, preferably supported with the historical evidence" or equivalent of the same so it is not just opinion of persons, based of feelings (I am not sure it is applicable to IT industry), but on factually based evidence. P.s: the number of 1000 did not have strict basis (from statistical or mathematical point of view). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:43, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Hi Katrin. I see your point re “further work be done”. It just struck me that we have not actually stated any recommendation about the rate of delegation and that we don’t know as a Working Group what that rate should be. All we know is that from a technical standpoint, both RRSAC and SSAC have said that it is not the overall 1,000 cap that is the best indicator of stability. Can we just ask SSAC and RSSAC to clarify what rate of delegation seems appropriate, e.g. adding X number of new Top Level Domains per month?
Thank you for catching this. Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 6:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
[EXTERNAL] Dear All,
unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow.
But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised:
“The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.””
I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal?
Kind regards, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting/> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>.
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Anne.
Dear all,
Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review:
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Best, Julie
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays.
Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
[EXTERNAL] Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Julie
One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).”
My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point.
I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program.
They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline.
Thanks
Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Notes and Action Items:
Action Items:
ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects.
ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Notes:
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.
2. Update from ICANN65
Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question.
3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>)
Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it?
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Maxim. I do agree that the basis for an opinion on the acceptable rate of adding TLDs to the root, e.g. per month rate of addition, should be stated. Anne From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 2:51 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, I will not be able to participate in the call, but if we ask SSAC and RSSAC about - "what number is the limit", is should go with the words "please provide factually based formula, preferably supported with the historical evidence" or equivalent of the same so it is not just opinion of persons, based of feelings (I am not sure it is applicable to IT industry), but on factually based evidence. P.s: the number of 1000 did not have strict basis (from statistical or mathematical point of view). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:43, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Hi Katrin. I see your point re “further work be done”. It just struck me that we have not actually stated any recommendation about the rate of delegation and that we don’t know as a Working Group what that rate should be. All we know is that from a technical standpoint, both RRSAC and SSAC have said that it is not the overall 1,000 cap that is the best indicator of stability. Can we just ask SSAC and RSSAC to clarify what rate of delegation seems appropriate, e.g. adding X number of new Top Level Domains per month? Thank you for catching this. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 6:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow. But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”” I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal? Kind regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting/> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn<https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>. DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Anne. Dear all, Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review: ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Best, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it? ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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.
Dear Anne, Maxim, To clarify a few things: The RSSAC did specify a percentage rate of change per month in their paper (see page 2) in the following text with my emphasis added: “The rate of change is more important than absolute magnitude. Based on historical trends since 2014 and our operational experiences, the RSSAC strongly recommends that the number of TLDs delegated in the root zone should not increase by more than about 5% per month, with the understanding that there may be minor variations from time-to-time. The Appendix provides some data and context for this recommendation.” The RSSAC also states that, “Delegations “per annum” is the wrong way to think about the problem because it could lead to very sudden changes depending on its implementation. It would be better to think in terms of changes over smaller periods of time (e.g., monthly).” The ~1000 delegation rate per year was identified as an operational limit in a staff paper drafted in 2010. If memory serves, the technical communities considered whether or not that operational capacity rate of 1000 delegations per year represented a security and stability risk. I’ve not reviewed the relevant papers drafted at the time for exact language, but in brief, it was determined that 1000 delegations per year did not represent a security and stability risk. However, notably, the technical communities refrained from establishing some sort of absolute limit of delegations per year and would likely continue to refrain from doing so now (see bullet 2 above). Hope the references to the RSSAC paper and brief bit of historical context is helpful. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 2:51 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear All, I will not be able to participate in the call, but if we ask SSAC and RSSAC about - "what number is the limit", is should go with the words "please provide factually based formula, preferably supported with the historical evidence" or equivalent of the same so it is not just opinion of persons, based of feelings (I am not sure it is applicable to IT industry), but on factually based evidence. P.s: the number of 1000 did not have strict basis (from statistical or mathematical point of view). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:43, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Hi Katrin. I see your point re “further work be done”. It just struck me that we have not actually stated any recommendation about the rate of delegation and that we don’t know as a Working Group what that rate should be. All we know is that from a technical standpoint, both RRSAC and SSAC have said that it is not the overall 1,000 cap that is the best indicator of stability. Can we just ask SSAC and RSSAC to clarify what rate of delegation seems appropriate, e.g. adding X number of new Top Level Domains per month? Thank you for catching this. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 6:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] Dear All, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow. But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”” I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal? Kind regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [dotzon.consulting] Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn [de.linkedin.com]. DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Anne. Dear all, Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review: ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Best, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org] ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org] -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it? 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Steve. This is very helpful. So do we take that to mean 5 % of the TLDs already launched as of Q1 2022 as the rate of addition that RSSAC recommends? (Many TLDs which have contract awards are not launched.) Does anyone know how many TLDs per month that is likely to be in Q1 2022 (as per the attached timeline). Is the attached timeline (displayed at the GDD meeting in May) the correct one? Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 3:25 PM To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Anne, Maxim, To clarify a few things: · The RSSAC did specify a percentage rate of change per month in their paper<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> (see page 2) in the following text with my emphasis added: “The rate of change is more important than absolute magnitude. Based on historical trends since 2014 and our operational experiences, the RSSAC strongly recommends that the number of TLDs delegated in the root zone should not increase by more than about 5% per month, with the understanding that there may be minor variations from time-to-time. The Appendix provides some data and context for this recommendation.” · The RSSAC also states that, “Delegations “per annum” is the wrong way to think about the problem because it could lead to very sudden changes depending on its implementation. It would be better to think in terms of changes over smaller periods of time (e.g., monthly).” The ~1000 delegation rate per year was identified as an operational limit in a staff paper<https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-...> drafted in 2010. If memory serves, the technical communities considered whether or not that operational capacity rate of 1000 delegations per year represented a security and stability risk. I’ve not reviewed the relevant papers drafted at the time for exact language, but in brief, it was determined that 1000 delegations per year did not represent a security and stability risk. However, notably, the technical communities refrained from establishing some sort of absolute limit of delegations per year and would likely continue to refrain from doing so now (see bullet 2 above). Hope the references to the RSSAC paper and brief bit of historical context is helpful. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 2:51 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear All, I will not be able to participate in the call, but if we ask SSAC and RSSAC about - "what number is the limit", is should go with the words "please provide factually based formula, preferably supported with the historical evidence" or equivalent of the same so it is not just opinion of persons, based of feelings (I am not sure it is applicable to IT industry), but on factually based evidence. P.s: the number of 1000 did not have strict basis (from statistical or mathematical point of view). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:43, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Hi Katrin. I see your point re “further work be done”. It just struck me that we have not actually stated any recommendation about the rate of delegation and that we don’t know as a Working Group what that rate should be. All we know is that from a technical standpoint, both RRSAC and SSAC have said that it is not the overall 1,000 cap that is the best indicator of stability. Can we just ask SSAC and RSSAC to clarify what rate of delegation seems appropriate, e.g. adding X number of new Top Level Domains per month? Thank you for catching this. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 6:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow. But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”” I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal? Kind regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting [dotzon.consulting]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.dotzon.consulting_&d...> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn [de.linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__de.linkedin.com_company...>. DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Anne. Dear all, Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review: ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Best, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it? ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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.
Em 10 de jul de 2019, à(s) 19:53:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:
Thanks Steve. This is very helpful. So do we take that to mean 5 % of the TLDs already launched as of Q1 2022 as the rate of addition that RSSAC recommends? (Many TLDs which have contract awards are not launched.) Does anyone know how many TLDs per month that is likely to be in Q1 2022 (as per the attached timeline).
TLDs that are delegated already caused change to the root zone, so it's not dependent of whether the TLD is launched or not. There are very few not yet delegated TLDs from the 2012 round, so the more likely source of addition of TLDs until 2022 is the IDN ccTLD program, followed by possible IDN Variant TLDs related to the 2012 round. Rubens
Thank you Rubens. I guess you are saying that the rate of change to the root is not affected by the number of second level registrations that are live? Anne P.S. I will unfortunately not be able to attend the call tonight. Apologies in advance. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 5:03 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Em 10 de jul de 2019, à(s) 19:53:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: Thanks Steve. This is very helpful. So do we take that to mean 5 % of the TLDs already launched as of Q1 2022 as the rate of addition that RSSAC recommends? (Many TLDs which have contract awards are not launched.) Does anyone know how many TLDs per month that is likely to be in Q1 2022 (as per the attached timeline). TLDs that are delegated already caused change to the root zone, so it's not dependent of whether the TLD is launched or not. There are very few not yet delegated TLDs from the 2012 round, so the more likely source of addition of TLDs until 2022 is the IDN ccTLD program, followed by possible IDN Variant TLDs related to the 2012 round. Rubens ________________________________ 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.
Em 10 de jul de 2019, à(s) 21:07:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:
Thank you Rubens. I guess you are saying that the rate of change to the root is not affected by the number of second level registrations that are live?
Exactly. Note also that delegation is not the only source of change in the root zone; if a TLD migrates from RSP A to RSP B, this is likely accomplished using a series of changes in order to not break the DNSSEC trust chain. A redelegation is more onerous from the root zone perspective than a delegation, and ICANN will need to factor that as well in keeping the "chicken soup" advice of rate of change. Rubens
Some more “light on the subject” of delegation rates from the RSSAC comments in 2018: [cid:image001.png@01D5373C.D34FDE90] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 3:25 PM To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Anne, Maxim, To clarify a few things: · The RSSAC did specify a percentage rate of change per month in their paper<https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> (see page 2) in the following text with my emphasis added: “The rate of change is more important than absolute magnitude. Based on historical trends since 2014 and our operational experiences, the RSSAC strongly recommends that the number of TLDs delegated in the root zone should not increase by more than about 5% per month, with the understanding that there may be minor variations from time-to-time. The Appendix provides some data and context for this recommendation.” · The RSSAC also states that, “Delegations “per annum” is the wrong way to think about the problem because it could lead to very sudden changes depending on its implementation. It would be better to think in terms of changes over smaller periods of time (e.g., monthly).” The ~1000 delegation rate per year was identified as an operational limit in a staff paper<https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-...> drafted in 2010. If memory serves, the technical communities considered whether or not that operational capacity rate of 1000 delegations per year represented a security and stability risk. I’ve not reviewed the relevant papers drafted at the time for exact language, but in brief, it was determined that 1000 delegations per year did not represent a security and stability risk. However, notably, the technical communities refrained from establishing some sort of absolute limit of delegations per year and would likely continue to refrain from doing so now (see bullet 2 above). Hope the references to the RSSAC paper and brief bit of historical context is helpful. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 2:51 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear All, I will not be able to participate in the call, but if we ask SSAC and RSSAC about - "what number is the limit", is should go with the words "please provide factually based formula, preferably supported with the historical evidence" or equivalent of the same so it is not just opinion of persons, based of feelings (I am not sure it is applicable to IT industry), but on factually based evidence. P.s: the number of 1000 did not have strict basis (from statistical or mathematical point of view). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:43, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Hi Katrin. I see your point re “further work be done”. It just struck me that we have not actually stated any recommendation about the rate of delegation and that we don’t know as a Working Group what that rate should be. All we know is that from a technical standpoint, both RRSAC and SSAC have said that it is not the overall 1,000 cap that is the best indicator of stability. Can we just ask SSAC and RSSAC to clarify what rate of delegation seems appropriate, e.g. adding X number of new Top Level Domains per month? Thank you for catching this. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 6:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear All, unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow. But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”” I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal? Kind regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting [dotzon.consulting]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.dotzon.consulting_&d...> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn [de.linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__de.linkedin.com_company...>. DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Anne. Dear all, Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review: ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Best, Julie From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim. Kind regards, Julie From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Thanks Julie One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).” My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point. I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program. They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline. Thanks Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects. ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...> ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.” Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Update from ICANN65 Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question. 3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>) Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it? ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ 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.
Most of the queries to the root server system consists of invalid queries, either totally malformed or queries to invalid TLDs. So, the delegation of TLDs has a two-prong effect: - In one hand, it could cause more queries to the root servers if the TLD becomes popular. Perhaps .web could cause some of this if/when it gets out of accountability dungeons. - On the other hand, it reduces invalid queries, because DNS populates cache more effectively than negative caching (caching the non-existence of a name). Also contributing to root server trends after the 2012 round is the growing use of distributing the root zone directly to recursive servers, totally bypassing the root servers although using the ICANN-published root zone. As RSSAC repeatedly points out, monitoring is the better prescription to not break a complex system where no one can predict all factors affecting its operation. Rubens
Em 10 de jul de 2019, à(s) 20:30:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:
Some more “light on the subject” of delegation rates from the RSSAC comments in 2018:
<image001.png>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 3:25 PM To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com <mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Dear Anne, Maxim,
To clarify a few things: · The RSSAC did specify a percentage rate of change per month in their paper <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> (see page 2) in the following text with my emphasis added: “The rate of change is more important than absolute magnitude. Based on historical trends since 2014 and our operational experiences, the RSSAC strongly recommends that the number of TLDs delegated in the root zone should not increase by more than about 5% per month, with the understanding that there may be minor variations from time-to-time. The Appendix provides some data and context for this recommendation.” · The RSSAC also states that, “Delegations “per annum” is the wrong way to think about the problem because it could lead to very sudden changes depending on its implementation. It would be better to think in terms of changes over smaller periods of time (e.g., monthly).”
The ~1000 delegation rate per year was identified as an operational limit in a staff paper <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-...> drafted in 2010. If memory serves, the technical communities considered whether or not that operational capacity rate of 1000 delegations per year represented a security and stability risk. I’ve not reviewed the relevant papers drafted at the time for exact language, but in brief, it was determined that 1000 delegations per year did not represent a security and stability risk. However, notably, the technical communities refrained from establishing some sort of absolute limit of delegations per year and would likely continue to refrain from doing so now (see bullet 2 above).
Hope the references to the RSSAC paper and brief bit of historical context is helpful.
Best, Steve
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com <mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 2:51 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Dear All,
I will not be able to participate in the call,
but if we ask SSAC and RSSAC about - "what number is the limit", is should go with the words "please provide factually based formula, preferably supported with the historical evidence" or equivalent of the same so it is not just opinion of persons, based of feelings (I am not sure it is applicable to IT industry), but on factually based evidence.
P.s: the number of 1000 did not have strict basis (from statistical or mathematical point of view).
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:43, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Hi Katrin. I see your point re “further work be done”. It just struck me that we have not actually stated any recommendation about the rate of delegation and that we don’t know as a Working Group what that rate should be. All we know is that from a technical standpoint, both RRSAC and SSAC have said that it is not the overall 1,000 cap that is the best indicator of stability. Can we just ask SSAC and RSSAC to clarify what rate of delegation seems appropriate, e.g. adding X number of new Top Level Domains per month?
Thank you for catching this. Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 6:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
[EXTERNAL] Dear All,
unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow.
But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised:
“The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.””
I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal?
Kind regards, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting [dotzon.consulting] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.dotzon.consulting_&d...> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn [de.linkedin.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__de.linkedin.com_company...>.
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Anne.
Dear all,
Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review:
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Best, Julie
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays.
Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
[EXTERNAL] Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Julie
One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).”
My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point.
I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program.
They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline.
Thanks
Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Notes and Action Items:
Action Items:
ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects.
ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Notes:
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.
2. Update from ICANN65
Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question.
3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>)
Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it?
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Steve, Just for clarity: the document https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> does not have any provided basis (factually based and not limited to few words of 'our operational experiences') for 5% number at all, and contains words about 10k and 25k TLDs, and to say more: figure 3 gives 14% in one of the months, where Internet was not broken (despite being almost three time more than 5% delegation rate). Talking about the Continuous Data-driven Analysis of Root Stability (CDAR) Deliverable D2: Root Stability Report, to which the previous document refer https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cdar-root-stability-final-08mar1... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cdar-root-stability-final-08mar1...> pages 41-> 61 does not have any explanation of 1000 or 5% numbers (all references to 5% in the document are not relevant to deployment rate). The https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-... <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-...> staff paper was written before the new gTLD 2012 round and was based on prior plans (which were changed quite severely: digital archery&batching, prioritization draw lottery, name collisions e.t.c.), and our WG is reviewing the results of what happened in the 2012 round (not the previous plans). As I understand now limits (procedural and operational for application processing) are regarded by ICANN to be resolved via scalable structure (after all applications were more or less 'recovery cost based' and not expected to be lower next time). So to avoid confusion we might want to use delegation rate and application /contract processing rates as separate ideas. We should not conflate what happened with the reasons why it happened (the curve of delegations we see is not because it was decided to be kept at 5%). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 11 Jul 2019, at 01:24, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Anne, Maxim,
To clarify a few things: The RSSAC did specify a percentage rate of change per month in their paper <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> (see page 2) in the following text with my emphasis added: “The rate of change is more important than absolute magnitude. Based on historical trends since 2014 and our operational experiences, the RSSAC strongly recommends that the number of TLDs delegated in the root zone should not increase by more than about 5% per month, with the understanding that there may be minor variations from time-to-time. The Appendix provides some data and context for this recommendation.” The RSSAC also states that, “Delegations “per annum” is the wrong way to think about the problem because it could lead to very sudden changes depending on its implementation. It would be better to think in terms of changes over smaller periods of time (e.g., monthly).”
The ~1000 delegation rate per year was identified as an operational limit in a staff paper <https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-...> drafted in 2010. If memory serves, the technical communities considered whether or not that operational capacity rate of 1000 delegations per year represented a security and stability risk. I’ve not reviewed the relevant papers drafted at the time for exact language, but in brief, it was determined that 1000 delegations per year did not represent a security and stability risk. However, notably, the technical communities refrained from establishing some sort of absolute limit of delegations per year and would likely continue to refrain from doing so now (see bullet 2 above).
Hope the references to the RSSAC paper and brief bit of historical context is helpful.
Best, Steve
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 2:51 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Dear All,
I will not be able to participate in the call,
but if we ask SSAC and RSSAC about - "what number is the limit", is should go with the words "please provide factually based formula, preferably supported with the historical evidence" or equivalent of the same so it is not just opinion of persons, based of feelings (I am not sure it is applicable to IT industry), but on factually based evidence.
P.s: the number of 1000 did not have strict basis (from statistical or mathematical point of view).
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:43, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Hi Katrin. I see your point re “further work be done”. It just struck me that we have not actually stated any recommendation about the rate of delegation and that we don’t know as a Working Group what that rate should be. All we know is that from a technical standpoint, both RRSAC and SSAC have said that it is not the overall 1,000 cap that is the best indicator of stability. Can we just ask SSAC and RSSAC to clarify what rate of delegation seems appropriate, e.g. adding X number of new Top Level Domains per month?
Thank you for catching this. Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 6:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
[EXTERNAL] Dear All,
unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow.
But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised:
“The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.””
I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal?
Kind regards, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting [dotzon.consulting] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.dotzon.consulting_&d...> Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn [de.linkedin.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__de.linkedin.com_company...>.
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Anne.
Dear all,
Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review:
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Best, Julie
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays.
Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
[EXTERNAL] Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Julie
One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).”
My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point.
I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program.
They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline.
Thanks
Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Notes and Action Items:
Action Items:
ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects.
ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Notes:
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.
2. Update from ICANN65
Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question.
3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>)
Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it?
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Katrin et al, Taking my leadership hat off, my take (also expressed in the call) is that this would be equivalent to asking again and again what we have already asked from ACs and from the technical community. We already have in hand, in writing and following all procedures of those ACs, SGs and Cs, all the opinions we need to make a recommendation. Rubens
Em 10 de jul de 2019, à(s) 10:59:000, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> escreveu:
Dear All,
unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow.
But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised:
“The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.””
I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal?
Kind regards, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting/>
Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>.
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Anne.
Dear all,
Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review:
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Best, Julie
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays.
Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
[EXTERNAL] Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Julie
One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).”
My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point.
I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program.
They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline.
Thanks
Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Notes and Action Items:
Action Items:
ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects.
ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Notes:
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.
2. Update from ICANN65
Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question.
3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>)
Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response:https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it?
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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear All, Do we have documented and reliable new information provided to the WG to which the support of WG Co-Chairs was expressed to be able to resurrect/reopen the item? If we do not have all positive answers here - I am puzzled, how can we do it? Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 11 Jul 2019, at 03:18, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Katrin et al,
Taking my leadership hat off, my take (also expressed in the call) is that this would be equivalent to asking again and again what we have already asked from ACs and from the technical community. We already have in hand, in writing and following all procedures of those ACs, SGs and Cs, all the opinions we need to make a recommendation.
Rubens
Em 10 de jul de 2019, à(s) 10:59:000, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com>> escreveu:
Dear All,
unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the call tomorrow.
But I wanted to provide my input on the comment Anne/Julie raised:
“The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.””
I’m not sure if this comment captured our discussions properly. Rather, it seems that this is one individual position, which is of course great to hear. Can the portion of “further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint” be further detailed, i.e. conduct a study, ask SSAC for an advisory, or other means? So we can discuss whether we endorse this proposal?
Kind regards, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting <mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting <http://www.dotzon.consulting/>
Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>.
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Juli 2019 21:04 An: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Anne.
Dear all,
Just bringing Anne’s suggested language back to the top of the post here for review:
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Best, Julie
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 1:36 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
I agree with Jim’s email below and with Julie’s recommendation in chat yesterday. I think that when the WG agrees on the specific language re the cap (as to which I sent a draft in chat yesterday), the full “high level agreement” language should be sent to both RSSAC and SSAC for comment clarification. Julie rightly pointed out that this was a reasonable approach and Jim is correct that it avoids future delays.
Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 5:30 AM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
[EXTERNAL] Many thanks for the helpful clarification Jim.
Kind regards, Julie
From: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM <mailto:jim@GALWAYSG.COM>> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 5:36 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Thanks Julie
One edit under notes – “Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements).”
My recommendation was for the WG to send the entire section dealing with Root Scaling to the SSAC and RSSAC for a quick look to ensure we have accurately captured their sentiment and the interplay between both of their work on this topic. Not just the 3rd bullet point.
I agree with your suggestion that we not look for formal “advice” but with the revelation that in Marrakech members of the SSAC were surprised that eliminating the 1,000 per year delegation limit was on the table, I do think we need a right track/wrong track assessment and feedback from both groups due to the highly technical nature of this material and the importance it plays in the ICANN assumptions as well as pace of the overall program.
They can review the material in parallel while we are working on the other material ahead of us so no risk to the timeline.
Thanks
Jim Prendergast The Galway Strategy Group +1 202 285 3699 @jimpren
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 5:31 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 08 July 2019
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 08 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-08+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro...>.
Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Notes and Action Items:
Action Items:
ACTION ITEM: Leadership to send a note to Cyrus and Trang asking what is the best way to send comments on the ICANN Org/GDD Assumptions document. State that we are still in discussion on topics in your assumptions, such as annual window or delegation rates, so it may be premature to assume concerning those subjects.
ACTION ITEM: GAC formally advised the Board re: need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. Check on how the Board has responded. Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-3... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>
ACTION ITEM: Delegation rates: Discuss what to say instead of a limit of 1000, such as the rate of change. See language from Anne Aikman-Scalese: “The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.”
Notes:
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.
2. Update from ICANN65
Session 1: -- Discussion on ICANN Org/GDD assumptions to begin preliminary planning for the next round on new gTLDs. ICANN Org is seeking feedback. -- Will the WG be responding to it? Not sure if the WG needs to respond. -- Perhaps WG Co-Chairs could send thoughts to the Council. Council is expecting an update on GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond. -- WG may need to get back if there is anything counter to the WG recommendations. -- WG Co-Chairs provided an update to the GAC Focal Group. See: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193 [65.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_m...> -- Question: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? Answer: The WG has not been delegated with this question.
3. Topics Connected to GDD's draft assumptions for implementation efforts -- Delegation Rates (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>)
Root Scaling: -- Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards. -- Policy goals have not changed. -- SSAC and RSSAC are in agreement: it is the rate of change -- SSAC Response:https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ... <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?previ...> -- Could ask RSSAC and SSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice (relating to the third bullet point under High Level Agreements). -- Could say that we have not found a technical rationale for limiting to 1000 delegations per year. The important factor is the rate of delegation. If we don’t use the number 1000, how do we replace it?
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.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Julie Hedlund -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
Maxim Alzoba -
Rubens Kuhl -
Steve Chan