ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs

Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D395E9.37DFF8A0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Policy informs and structures the operation. It is not our concern if they are not staffed properly. We set the policy and they must fund a way to implement it. All the same fears existed around the entire gtld program concerning application volume. And icann ramped up staff to handle it We should make great policy and leave the operations to staff. Rob Sent from my iPhone so please excuse any shortness or rudeness. This thing has the most amazing user interface but the keyboard sucks and often guesses a different word than the one I wanted. On Jan 25, 2018, at 16:32, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ 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

On 25 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.)
Rate of change and total zone size. While ICANN Org mentioned total zone size once in their response, they ended up not answering that part of the question.
The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables.
Which it always was, but history of this issue is that one limit is circularly applied to the other.
Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information.
The issue here is the difference between current GNSO Policy and current ICANN Org new gTLD implementation. GNSO Policy indeed did not prescribe anything that suggested a rate limit; even recommendation 4 "Strings must not cause any technical instability." does not talk to it, since it was about the applied-for strings, not about how they are delegated. The problem for the 2012-round started when a guess of 1,000 per year was made at how demand and application processing could progress, followed by asking if the root system could handle that 1,000 a year load. The answer that it would do ok with such a load was turned into an imaginary line of the system capacity, one that now ICANN reckons is very hard to estimate. The change here would bring implementation back to original policy, one that indeed no one sees need for change: don't impose inexistent limits to systems, while recognising limits where they do exist. Rubens

Thanks Rubens. This helps. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D396BE.21BAA8B0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 6:54 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs On 25 Jan 2018, at 19:31, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) Rate of change and total zone size. While ICANN Org mentioned total zone size once in their response, they ended up not answering that part of the question. The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Which it always was, but history of this issue is that one limit is circularly applied to the other. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. The issue here is the difference between current GNSO Policy and current ICANN Org new gTLD implementation. GNSO Policy indeed did not prescribe anything that suggested a rate limit; even recommendation 4 "Strings must not cause any technical instability." does not talk to it, since it was about the applied-for strings, not about how they are delegated. The problem for the 2012-round started when a guess of 1,000 per year was made at how demand and application processing could progress, followed by asking if the root system could handle that 1,000 a year load. The answer that it would do ok with such a load was turned into an imaginary line of the system capacity, one that now ICANN reckons is very hard to estimate. The change here would bring implementation back to original policy, one that indeed no one sees need for change: don't impose inexistent limits to systems, while recognising limits where they do exist. 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.

Anne, One of the issues we have is that there is no policy on this. There was a declaration by the ICANN Board before the last round that the number of new gTLD delegations be limited to no more than 1000 per calendar year. That was not a policy decision. We still have the “Chicken and the egg” problem here. If there is a limit on the number of delegations per year, that will certainly influence the policies and procedures we set. On the other hand, the policies and procedures that we set may limit the number of delegations that can happen in any given year. At this point, I think we need to determine what our policies should be in an ideal world without any limits to the number of delegations that could occur in a given year (assuming that ICANN Org will staff up to meet those requirements). Once we present those policy recommendations, if we get information from ICANN Org or elsewhere that those recommendations will result in limits, we can address at that point. Does everyone agree? Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D39684.18EC5FB0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Jeff – can you circulate the Board decision on this? That will help us determine if it was policy as opposed to something else. thanks From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 9:00 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Anne, One of the issues we have is that there is no policy on this. There was a declaration by the ICANN Board before the last round that the number of new gTLD delegations be limited to no more than 1000 per calendar year. That was not a policy decision. We still have the “Chicken and the egg” problem here. If there is a limit on the number of delegations per year, that will certainly influence the policies and procedures we set. On the other hand, the policies and procedures that we set may limit the number of delegations that can happen in any given year. At this point, I think we need to determine what our policies should be in an ideal world without any limits to the number of delegations that could occur in a given year (assuming that ICANN Org will staff up to meet those requirements). Once we present those policy recommendations, if we get information from ICANN Org or elsewhere that those recommendations will result in limits, we can address at that point. Does everyone agree? Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D39685.552744D0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Easy solution: If only 1k applications will be processed per year – and we want to have the 3rd round after latest 1 year after the 2nd round – then we can’t have more than 1k applications! To get no more than 1k applications we could simply apply a Holland auction based application fee model that stops to take applications at 1,000: 1st 3 days applications cost US $500k! 2nd 3 days they are US $400k! That goes on until we have either 1k applications or the desired future application fee (e.g. US $150k). Obviously only AFTER all applications are in we start to look at contention sets! So applying for .silly at 500k doesn’t trump .silly applied for at 200k! Then after one year: Rinse and repeat! Thoughts? Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 4:00 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Anne, One of the issues we have is that there is no policy on this. There was a declaration by the ICANN Board before the last round that the number of new gTLD delegations be limited to no more than 1000 per calendar year. That was not a policy decision. We still have the “Chicken and the egg” problem here. If there is a limit on the number of delegations per year, that will certainly influence the policies and procedures we set. On the other hand, the policies and procedures that we set may limit the number of delegations that can happen in any given year. At this point, I think we need to determine what our policies should be in an ideal world without any limits to the number of delegations that could occur in a given year (assuming that ICANN Org will staff up to meet those requirements). Once we present those policy recommendations, if we get information from ICANN Org or elsewhere that those recommendations will result in limits, we can address at that point. Does everyone agree? Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...> . Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Alexander, As much as I like the dutch auction way of resolving things, your proposal heavily favours one particular applicant type – the ones with the most funding. Having access to the most cash should not be the priority factor that determines who gets to be in the 1,000 (or whatever the limit may be). Prefer Jeff’s suggestion – proceed on the basis of no limit to delegation amounts and recommend policy around that. Cheers, Tim From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Saturday, 27 January 2018 4:28 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Easy solution: If only 1k applications will be processed per year – and we want to have the 3rd round after latest 1 year after the 2nd round – then we can’t have more than 1k applications! To get no more than 1k applications we could simply apply a Holland auction based application fee model that stops to take applications at 1,000: 1st 3 days applications cost US $500k! 2nd 3 days they are US $400k! That goes on until we have either 1k applications or the desired future application fee (e.g. US $150k). Obviously only AFTER all applications are in we start to look at contention sets! So applying for .silly at 500k doesn’t trump .silly applied for at 200k! Then after one year: Rinse and repeat! Thoughts? Alexander Schubert From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 4:00 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Anne, One of the issues we have is that there is no policy on this. There was a declaration by the ICANN Board before the last round that the number of new gTLD delegations be limited to no more than 1000 per calendar year. That was not a policy decision. We still have the “Chicken and the egg” problem here. If there is a limit on the number of delegations per year, that will certainly influence the policies and procedures we set. On the other hand, the policies and procedures that we set may limit the number of delegations that can happen in any given year. At this point, I think we need to determine what our policies should be in an ideal world without any limits to the number of delegations that could occur in a given year (assuming that ICANN Org will staff up to meet those requirements). Once we present those policy recommendations, if we get information from ICANN Org or elsewhere that those recommendations will result in limits, we can address at that point. Does everyone agree? Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...> . Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.

Thanks Jeff. That makes sense. I just recall reading that the issue was the “rate of change to the root” and not necessarily the # of TLDs added “per year”. Hard to get a handle on what that means. Maybe PTI could be helpful though. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D396A9.7A845A50] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:00 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Anne, One of the issues we have is that there is no policy on this. There was a declaration by the ICANN Board before the last round that the number of new gTLD delegations be limited to no more than 1000 per calendar year. That was not a policy decision. We still have the “Chicken and the egg” problem here. If there is a limit on the number of delegations per year, that will certainly influence the policies and procedures we set. On the other hand, the policies and procedures that we set may limit the number of delegations that can happen in any given year. At this point, I think we need to determine what our policies should be in an ideal world without any limits to the number of delegations that could occur in a given year (assuming that ICANN Org will staff up to meet those requirements). Once we present those policy recommendations, if we get information from ICANN Org or elsewhere that those recommendations will result in limits, we can address at that point. Does everyone agree? Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 PM To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year. (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.) The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables. Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D396A9.7A5FBB50] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs Dear WG and WT4 Members, Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-... This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
participants (8)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne
-
Alexander Schubert
-
Jeff Neuman
-
Jim Prendergast
-
Rob Hall
-
Rubens Kuhl
-
Steve Chan
-
Tim Johnson