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... 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 -- 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...) 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?
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... 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 -- 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...) 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?
participants (2)
-
Jim Prendergast -
Julie Hedlund