FW: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs
All, Please find material from ICANN for the Subsequent Procedures PDP Session #3 (13:30 – 15:00 local time) as discussed on the call earlier today. I have not yet gone through this document, but wanted to forward it on as soon as I got it, Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600 Mclean , VA 22102 UNITED STATES T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of orders. To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter. In this case, please contact your client manager or admin@comlaude.com for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed. Thank you. From: Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:33 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org>; David Olive <david.olive@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Dear Cheryl and Jeff; We understand that the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. As you likely know, these recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. I have shared these assumptions with the ICANN Board, and am now sharing them with all ICANN constituencies in the briefing document attached. If the PDP Working Group members are interested in further engagement and providing feedback and perspective on these assumptions please let me know and we will be happy to arrange a mutually convenient time for a discussion. Ideally, we could leverage the time in Marrakech for a face-to-face meeting. For your information, this information will also be included in the ICANN Community Digest which is planned to be issued later this week. Sincerely, Cyrus Namazi Senior Vice President | Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 801 17th St NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 USA Office +1 202 249 7543 | Mobile +1 408 421 6894 Skype : cnamazi www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
Thanks Jeff. It’s very helpful to receive this in advance of the session. Just a few initial observations: 1. Costs of Readiness for the Next Round. Para 8.1 reiterates the assumption that the new gTLD program will operate on a cost recovery basis and will be funded from application fees collected. Para 7.4 says ICANN has insufficient staff to implement new policy and prepare to operate the next application round. Much of the rest of the document talks about what ICANN must do to “gear up” to run the program and implement policy changes. However, there is a “chicken and egg” problem because one cannot “gear up” with sufficient staff when no application fees will have been received. So the topic of funding for “gearing up” will likely come up in the session. Has anyone identified possible sources to fund the costs associated with “readiness” for the next round? 2. Assumption of a Single Application Window to start the next round. Para 2.6 assumes a “single application window” of one to three months. I don’t think this assumption is consistent with Sub Pro PDP discussions to date. Since the document says it is based on the pre-existing Sub Pro PDP work (See Para. 3.1) , it seems odd that the assumption of one single application window for all types of applications is assumed. As you know, there have been multiple scenarios put forward re successive windows, including, but not limited to the Neustar proposal, as well as discussion about “priority rounds” depending on gTLD “type”. 3. Assumption that in Order to be “Ready”, ICANN should assume it needs to “staff up” for ongoing application rounds. Para 4.1 states that “Operational infrastructure (people, processes, systems) will be established to support subsequent application rounds for the long-term introduction of new gTLDs, not just a single round.” The WG has debated a number of scenarios in relation to “windows”. It seems the work in relation to “ongoing applications” has not progressed sufficiently within the WG to support the conclusion that ICANN should gear up staffing and systems to sustain ongoing application rounds. We discussed this in the policy goals related to “Applications in Rounds”. The concern is that until the Board gives final approval to proceed to the next round after reconciling GNSO Advice with GAC, ALAC, and SSAC advice, staffing up of ICANN org could result in a lot of people without enough work to do. Thus, it may make sense to determine what readiness activities can be conducted without adding permanent staff. Paragraph 7.6 hints at this via a reference to “temporary resources” but that seems to be the “exception” based on this paper. In this regard, it would be good for the PDP to talk about which functions can be addressed on a “temporary” or “independent contractor” basis. Temporary and independent contractor resources might be the preferred interim step to “readiness” given that policy work and advice to the Board are not complete. Even “temporary resources” will of course still implicate the question of “funding on a cost-recovery basis.” I know that the budget contains some funds that are not specifically designated. I believe Xavier said this number was $5M or so, some of which is already spoken for. Unfortunately I missed this morning’s call re Operating Budget due to the conflict with Sub Pro but it would be good if additional info could be developed before the ICANN 65 discussion session. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:16 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Please find material from ICANN for the Subsequent Procedures PDP Session #3 (13:30 – 15:00 local time) as discussed on the call earlier today. I have not yet gone through this document, but wanted to forward it on as soon as I got it, Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600 Mclean , VA 22102 UNITED STATES T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of orders. To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter. In this case, please contact your client manager or admin@comlaude.com<mailto:admin@comlaude.com> for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed. Thank you. From: Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org<mailto:cyrus.namazi@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:33 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen@icann.org<mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org>>; David Olive <david.olive@icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs Dear Cheryl and Jeff; We understand that the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. As you likely know, these recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage. In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. I have shared these assumptions with the ICANN Board, and am now sharing them with all ICANN constituencies in the briefing document attached. If the PDP Working Group members are interested in further engagement and providing feedback and perspective on these assumptions please let me know and we will be happy to arrange a mutually convenient time for a discussion. Ideally, we could leverage the time in Marrakech for a face-to-face meeting. For your information, this information will also be included in the ICANN Community Digest which is planned to be issued later this week. Sincerely, Cyrus Namazi Senior Vice President | Global Domains Division Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 801 17th St NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 USA Office +1 202 249 7543 | Mobile +1 408 421 6894 Skype : cnamazi www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> ________________________________ 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 17 de jun de 2019, à(s) 18:06:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:
Thanks Jeff. It’s very helpful to receive this in advance of the session. Just a few initial observations:
1. Costs of Readiness for the Next Round. Para 8.1 reiterates the assumption that the new gTLD program will operate on a cost recovery basis and will be funded from application fees collected. Para 7.4 says ICANN has insufficient staff to implement new policy and prepare to operate the next application round. Much of the rest of the document talks about what ICANN must do to “gear up” to run the program and implement policy changes. However, there is a “chicken and egg” problem because one cannot “gear up” with sufficient staff when no application fees will have been received. So the topic of funding for “gearing up” will likely come up in the session. Has anyone identified possible sources to fund the costs associated with “readiness” for the next round?
I believe the current new gTLD pot (not including auctions, just application fees) is getting larger compared to the remaining applications, so the risk needed to be supported is getting smaller. This might allow some parts of the development to move forward, but it would make some parts of the 2012 cost-recovery be delayed until the next application fees come in.
2. Assumption of a Single Application Window to start the next round. Para 2.6 assumes a “single application window” of one to three months. I don’t think this assumption is consistent with Sub Pro PDP discussions to date. Since the document says it is based on the pre-existing Sub Pro PDP work (See Para. 3.1) , it seems odd that the assumption of one single application window for all types of applications is assumed. As you know, there have been multiple scenarios put forward re successive windows, including, but not limited to the Neustar proposal, as well as discussion about “priority rounds” depending on gTLD “type”.
Although suggested now and then, but none ever get to not receive a good number of objections from WG members... except single application window. So if I were ICANN Org, I would take this is a more likely scenario. It's not written in stone and if any of the alternate proposals reach consensus then we go with it, but it seems rather improbable.
3. Assumption that in Order to be “Ready”, ICANN should assume it needs to “staff up” for ongoing application rounds. Para 4.1 states that “Operational infrastructure (people, processes, systems) will be established to support subsequent application rounds for the long-term introduction of new gTLDs, not just a single round.” The WG has debated a number of scenarios in relation to “windows”. It seems the work in relation to “ongoing applications” has not progressed sufficiently within the WG to support the conclusion that ICANN should gear up staffing and systems to sustain ongoing application rounds. We discussed this in the policy goals related to “Applications in Rounds”.
The concern is that until the Board gives final approval to proceed to the next round after reconciling GNSO Advice with GAC, ALAC, and SSAC advice, staffing up of ICANN org could result in a lot of people without enough work to do. Thus, it may make sense to determine what readiness activities can be conducted without adding permanent staff. Paragraph 7.6 hints at this via a reference to “temporary resources” but that seems to be the “exception” based on this paper. In this regard, it would be good for the PDP to talk about which functions can be addressed on a “temporary” or “independent contractor” basis.
Temporary and independent contractor resources might be the preferred interim step to “readiness” given that policy work and advice to the Board are not complete. Even “temporary resources” will of course still implicate the question of “funding on a cost-recovery basis.” I know that the budget contains some funds that are not specifically designated. I believe Xavier said this number was $5M or so, some of which is already spoken for. Unfortunately I missed this morning’s call re Operating Budget due to the conflict with Sub Pro but it would be good if additional info could be developed before the ICANN 65 discussion session.
It was surprising to read ICANN Org advocating for more staff; they are usually more prone to temporary and independent contractors for everything unless there will be a clear continuous need for staff increase. Even Registration Data EPDP, a task with little operational effort from ICANN, is using contractors to be able to handle it. And not only on an interim basis, unless the process comes to something like a continuous application window, I don't see increasing fixed staff as the answer. Perhaps Cyrus will be able to expand on this ? He might have "war-gamed" this out and realised the standard ICANN way wouldn't cut it. Rubens
participants (3)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Jeff Neuman -
Rubens Kuhl