Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better......
Dear SubPro Team, Background I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive. For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs. Specific Comments to Workplan According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping). It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1: Predictability - which would include the SPIRT Applicant Freedom of Expression Different TLD Types Conflict of Interest Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) Metrics / Monitoring Dispute Resolution Procedures - Question Why is this not covered in Module 4? Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings IDNs Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (Should be in Module 6) Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately. But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan). This is because: a) Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks 1. Topic 36- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely: Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....so this affirmation does not require any work. Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - No additional work required Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - No IRT work needed Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1 2. Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here. 1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment.” This has already been implemented except for one thing.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request. 3. Topic 38: Registrar Support for new TLDs - This one is just an affirmation which requires no new implementation at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer. Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report a) Registry System Testing 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so. b) TLD Rollout: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. No new implementation work needed. c) Contractual Compliance - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases (Mostly implemented already). Module 8: Terms and Condition - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: 3 weeks at most. 4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed. b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - Requires no new implementation in advance. c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. No new work likely. d) Refunds - This one will require some implementation work to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed. e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. No real new implementation work. f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. But no new implementation work here really because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements.
Dear SubPro Team, Anne and Jeff raise good points here regarding the draft plan timeline being overly long. At our first meeting the points were raised about conducting work tracks in parallel to provide a more efficient process to cover the IRT workload; this does not appear to be incorporated in the draft plan. Together with Jeff’s analysis of the topics and overlap, there could be a significant and valuable reduction to the proposed timeline. I do worry that the whole process since the delivery of the Final Report is prone to over-engineering and creates unwanted risks, such as losing valuable IRT members if the process extends to 2 years or beyond. A shorter, achievable timeline will help retain members and create motivation within the IRT to achieve results. From ICANN’s perspective, a shorter timeline should also be favourable in terms of costs (with the knock on effect of creating earlier revenues). I hope we can work on improving the draft plans and establish a more efficient path to present to the Board at ICANN77. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Managing Director Top Dot Ltd, The Business Terrace, King St, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6JQ +44 (0)7774 556680 martinsutton@topdotconsulting.com The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
On 23 May 2023, at 16:14, jeff@jjnsolutions.com wrote:
Dear SubPro Team,
Background I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive.
For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs.
Specific Comments to Workplan According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping).
It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1: Predictability - which would include the SPIRT Applicant Freedom of Expression Different TLD Types Conflict of Interest Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) Metrics / Monitoring Dispute Resolution Procedures - Question Why is this not covered in Module 4? Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings IDNs Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (Should be in Module 6) Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately.
But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan).
This is because:
a) Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks 1. Topic 36- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely: Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....so this affirmation does not require any work. Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - No additional work required Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - No IRT work needed Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1 2. Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here.
1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment.”
This has already been implemented except for one thing.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request.
3. Topic 38: Registrar Support for new TLDs - This one is just an affirmation which requires no new implementation at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer.
Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report a) Registry System Testing 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so.
b) TLD Rollout: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. No new implementation work needed.
c) Contractual Compliance - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases (Mostly implemented already).
Module 8: Terms and Condition - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: 3 weeks at most.
4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance
a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed.
b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - Requires no new implementation in advance.
c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. No new work likely.
d) Refunds - This one will require some implementation work to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed.
e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. No real new implementation work.
f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. But no new implementation work here really because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements.
<njmdxlah.png>
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org <mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt>
_______________________________________________ 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.
I have also given apologies for tonight's call as I have an unavoidable conflict. It would be really helpful, as we go forward with this work, if the IRT calls could please have fixed time slot(s) and/or we can have calendar invites for the calls at least a couple of weeks in advance. This would help those of us who would like to prioritise attendance to schedule other calls around these ones. I share the concerns raised by Anne, Jeff and Martin on the timeline. There is tremendous criticism of ICANN for failure to deliver. I really hope we can find ways to increase the efficiency and speed here. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01D98D9D.BA754610]<https://comlaude.com/> We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Martin Sutton Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:59 PM To: Jeff@jjnsolutions.com Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better...... Dear SubPro Team, Anne and Jeff raise good points here regarding the draft plan timeline being overly long. At our first meeting the points were raised about conducting work tracks in parallel to provide a more efficient process to cover the IRT workload; this does not appear to be incorporated in the draft plan. Together with Jeff's analysis of the topics and overlap, there could be a significant and valuable reduction to the proposed timeline. I do worry that the whole process since the delivery of the Final Report is prone to over-engineering and creates unwanted risks, such as losing valuable IRT members if the process extends to 2 years or beyond. A shorter, achievable timeline will help retain members and create motivation within the IRT to achieve results.
From ICANN's perspective, a shorter timeline should also be favourable in terms of costs (with the knock on effect of creating earlier revenues).
I hope we can work on improving the draft plans and establish a more efficient path to present to the Board at ICANN77. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Managing Director Top Dot Ltd, The Business Terrace, King St, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6JQ +44 (0)7774 556680 martinsutton@topdotconsulting.com<mailto:martinsutton@topdotconsulting.com> The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 23 May 2023, at 16:14, jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote: Dear SubPro Team, Background I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive. For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs. Specific Comments to Workplan According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping). It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1: * Predictability - which would include the SPIRT * Applicant Freedom of Expression * Different TLD Types * Conflict of Interest * Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) * Metrics / Monitoring * Dispute Resolution Procedures - Question Why is this not covered in Module 4? * Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 * GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings * IDNs * Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets * Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (Should be in Module 6) Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately. But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan). This is because: a) Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks 1. Topic 36- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely: * Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....so this affirmation does not require any work. * Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - No additional work required * Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - No IRT work needed * Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1 2. Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here. 1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment." This has already been implemented except for one thing.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request. 3. Topic 38: Registrar Support for new TLDs - This one is just an affirmation which requires no new implementation at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer. Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report a) Registry System Testing 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so. b) TLD Rollout: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. No new implementation work needed. c) Contractual Compliance - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases (Mostly implemented already). Module 8: Terms and Condition - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: 3 weeks at most. 4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed. b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - Requires no new implementation in advance. c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. No new work likely. d) Refunds - This one will require some implementation work to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed. e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. No real new implementation work. f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. But no new implementation work here really because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements. 1. <njmdxlah.png> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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 Com Laude Group Limited (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 is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. 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 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
Colleagues Good afternoon; I must also apologise as I will be late on Call (am travelling to an ICANN session.....). On *timeline *thanks go to Jeff, Anne, Susan and Martin for their lucid comments. I am no expert but perhaps there could be some parallel work; although I think we have to respect that some SO/AC may have only one (or perhaps two) representatives which may be an issue. best Nigel O n Tue, 23 May 2023 at 17:45, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> wrote:
I have also given apologies for tonight’s call as I have an unavoidable conflict. It would be really helpful, as we go forward with this work, if the IRT calls could please have fixed time slot(s) and/or we can have calendar invites for the calls at least a couple of weeks in advance. This would help those of us who would like to prioritise attendance to schedule other calls around these ones.
I share the concerns raised by Anne, Jeff and Martin on the timeline. There is tremendous criticism of ICANN for failure to deliver. I really hope we can find ways to increase the efficiency and speed here.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>*[image: .]
*From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Martin Sutton *Sent:* Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:59 PM *To:* Jeff@jjnsolutions.com *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better......
Dear SubPro Team,
Anne and Jeff raise good points here regarding the draft plan timeline being overly long. At our first meeting the points were raised about conducting work tracks in parallel to provide a more efficient process to cover the IRT workload; this does not appear to be incorporated in the draft plan. Together with Jeff’s analysis of the topics and overlap, there could be a significant and valuable reduction to the proposed timeline.
I do worry that the whole process since the delivery of the Final Report is prone to over-engineering and creates unwanted risks, such as losing valuable IRT members if the process extends to 2 years or beyond. A shorter, achievable timeline will help retain members and create motivation within the IRT to achieve results.
From ICANN’s perspective, a shorter timeline should also be favourable in terms of costs (with the knock on effect of creating earlier revenues).
I hope we can work on improving the draft plans and establish a more efficient path to present to the Board at ICANN77.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Managing Director
Top Dot Ltd, The Business Terrace, King St, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6JQ
+44 (0)7774 556680
martinsutton@topdotconsulting.com
*The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.*
On 23 May 2023, at 16:14, jeff@jjnsolutions.com wrote:
Dear SubPro Team,
*Background*
I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive.
For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs.
*Specific Comments to Workplan*
According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping).
It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1:
- Predictability - which would include the SPIRT - Applicant Freedom of Expression - Different TLD Types - Conflict of Interest - Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) - Metrics / Monitoring - Dispute Resolution Procedures - *Question Why is this not covered in Module 4?* - Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 - GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings - IDNs - Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets - Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (*Should be in Module 6*)
Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately.
But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). *Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan).*
This is because:
a) *Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks*
1. *Topic 36*- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely:
1. Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....s*o this affirmation does not require any work*. 2. Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - *No additional work required* 3. Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - *No IRT work needed* 4. Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. *This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1*
2. *Topic 37:* Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here.
1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment.”
*This has already been implemented except for one thing*.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request.
3. *Topic 38:* *Registrar Support for new TLDs* - This one is just an affirmation which *requires no new implementation *at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer.
*Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most*
I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report
a) *Registry System Testing* 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so.
b) *TLD Rollout*: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. *No new implementation work needed*.
c) *Contractual Compliance* - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases *(Mostly implemented already*).
*Module 8: Terms and Condition* - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: *3 weeks at most.*
4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance
a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but *if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed*.
b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - *Requires no new implementation in advance*.
c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. *No new work likely.*
d) Refunds - This one will r*equire some implementation work* to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - *Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed.*
e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. *No real new implementation work.*
f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. *But no new implementation work here really *because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements.
1. <njmdxlah.png>
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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.
------------------------------ 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 Com Laude Group Limited (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 is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. 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 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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.
Good Afternoon, Apologies as well, I have a conflict for today's call, an ICANN-77 Prep meeting (hopefully it gets done early). I do appreciate Jeff's expertise and his thoroughness with this email. I don't think the proposed timeline or for that matter the actual work is the issue here, it is the perception of a timeline and expectation of completion that matter. I don't believe that the original proposed timeline nor Jeff's timeline will be accurate. Taking into account Jeff's expertise I would say our work will get completed somewhere between what Jeff has laid out and the original proposed timeline. There will be a lot of people wanting to act once as soon as this work is complete so providing accurate timelines is important, but being transparent on status will be more important, it will be much more costly missing a date than coming in early. With that said, I am generally an optimist and I do like Jeff's optimism here, but I would caution on trying to trim the timeline too much, especially right out of the gate. I would not want to create an "over-promised and under-delivered" experience on something this important. I have not observed an IRT actually completing on or ahead of schedule, let's all be part of one that does! And I think that means being prepared for meetings and doing what's needed in between meetings. Thanks Roger ________________________________ From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:45 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better...... Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. I have also given apologies for tonight’s call as I have an unavoidable conflict. It would be really helpful, as we go forward with this work, if the IRT calls could please have fixed time slot(s) and/or we can have calendar invites for the calls at least a couple of weeks in advance. This would help those of us who would like to prioritise attendance to schedule other calls around these ones. I share the concerns raised by Anne, Jeff and Martin on the timeline. There is tremendous criticism of ICANN for failure to deliver. I really hope we can find ways to increase the efficiency and speed here. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01D98D9D.BA754610]<https://comlaude.com/> We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Martin Sutton Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:59 PM To: Jeff@jjnsolutions.com Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better...... Dear SubPro Team, Anne and Jeff raise good points here regarding the draft plan timeline being overly long. At our first meeting the points were raised about conducting work tracks in parallel to provide a more efficient process to cover the IRT workload; this does not appear to be incorporated in the draft plan. Together with Jeff’s analysis of the topics and overlap, there could be a significant and valuable reduction to the proposed timeline. I do worry that the whole process since the delivery of the Final Report is prone to over-engineering and creates unwanted risks, such as losing valuable IRT members if the process extends to 2 years or beyond. A shorter, achievable timeline will help retain members and create motivation within the IRT to achieve results.
From ICANN’s perspective, a shorter timeline should also be favourable in terms of costs (with the knock on effect of creating earlier revenues).
I hope we can work on improving the draft plans and establish a more efficient path to present to the Board at ICANN77. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Managing Director Top Dot Ltd, The Business Terrace, King St, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6JQ +44 (0)7774 556680 martinsutton@topdotconsulting.com<mailto:martinsutton@topdotconsulting.com> The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 23 May 2023, at 16:14, jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote: Dear SubPro Team, Background I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive. For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs. Specific Comments to Workplan According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping). It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1: * Predictability - which would include the SPIRT * Applicant Freedom of Expression * Different TLD Types * Conflict of Interest * Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) * Metrics / Monitoring * Dispute Resolution Procedures - Question Why is this not covered in Module 4? * Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 * GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings * IDNs * Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets * Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (Should be in Module 6) Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately. But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan). This is because: a) Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks 1. Topic 36- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely: * Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....so this affirmation does not require any work. * Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - No additional work required * Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - No IRT work needed * Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1 2. Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here. 1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment.” This has already been implemented except for one thing.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request. 3. Topic 38: Registrar Support for new TLDs - This one is just an affirmation which requires no new implementation at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer. Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report a) Registry System Testing 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so. b) TLD Rollout: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. No new implementation work needed. c) Contractual Compliance - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases (Mostly implemented already). Module 8: Terms and Condition - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: 3 weeks at most. 4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed. b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - Requires no new implementation in advance. c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. No new work likely. d) Refunds - This one will require some implementation work to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed. e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. No real new implementation work. f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. But no new implementation work here really because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements. 1. <njmdxlah.png> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org<mailto:SubPro-IRT@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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 Com Laude Group Limited (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 is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. 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 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
Roger, Thanks for that feedback and I agree that no matter what timeline we state today, none of them will turn out completely accurate ;) However, the point of my e-mail was: 1. The timeline should be based on an estimation of actual work required per Module as opposed to assigning a blanket 3-4 months for all of them. Some may take a lot less...and yes, in theory, some could take more. - As I have demonstrated, Modules 6-8 does not have nearly the amount of new implementation work, than lets say Module 1 with the establishment of the SPIRT. In sum, lets put some real analysis into the Work Plan as opposed to throwing out random dates and time periods for work without really looking into the amount of work that needs to be done. 2. Lets be aggressive and try to push ourselves. Establishing too conservative timelines leads to complacency and procrastination. I would rather set more aggressive internal goals and miss them by a little bit, than to set a way too long timeline where we still may miss it because people procrastinate. Working against aggressive timelines (which are realistic of course), means that even if we take longer, we will still likely be in a better position than had we had the way too long timeline. Sincerely, Jeff ------ Original Message ------
From "Roger D Carney via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt@icann.org> To "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Date 5/23/2023 2:42:13 PM Subject Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better......
Good Afternoon,
Apologies as well, I have a conflict for today's call, an ICANN-77 Prep meeting (hopefully it gets done early).
I do appreciate Jeff's expertise and his thoroughness with this email.
I don't think the proposed timeline or for that matter the actual work is the issue here, it is the perception of a timeline and expectation of completion that matter. I don't believe that the original proposed timeline nor Jeff's timeline will be accurate. Taking into account Jeff's expertise I would say our work will get completed somewhere between what Jeff has laid out and the original proposed timeline. There will be a lot of people wanting to act once as soon as this work is complete so providing accurate timelines is important, but being transparent on status will be more important, it will be much more costly missing a date than coming in early.
With that said, I am generally an optimist and I do like Jeff's optimism here, but I would caution on trying to trim the timeline too much, especially right out of the gate. I would not want to create an "over-promised and under-delivered" experience on something this important. I have not observed an IRT actually completing on or ahead of schedule, let's all be part of one that does! And I think that means being prepared for meetings and doing what's needed in between meetings.
Thanks Roger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:45 AM To:subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better......
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@.
I have also given apologies for tonight’s call as I have an unavoidable conflict. It would be really helpful, as we go forward with this work, if the IRT calls could please have fixed time slot(s) and/or we can have calendar invites for the calls at least a couple of weeks in advance. This would help those of us who would like to prioritise attendance to schedule other calls around these ones.
I share the concerns raised by Anne, Jeff and Martin on the timeline. There is tremendous criticism of ICANN for failure to deliver. I really hope we can find ways to increase the efficiency and speed here.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255
We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> .
From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Martin Sutton Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:59 PM To:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com Cc:subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better......
Dear SubPro Team,
Anne and Jeff raise good points here regarding the draft plan timeline being overly long. At our first meeting the points were raised about conducting work tracks in parallel to provide a more efficient process to cover the IRT workload; this does not appear to be incorporated in the draft plan. Together with Jeff’s analysis of the topics and overlap, there could be a significant and valuable reduction to the proposed timeline.
I do worry that the whole process since the delivery of the Final Report is prone to over-engineering and creates unwanted risks, such as losing valuable IRT members if the process extends to 2 years or beyond. A shorter, achievable timeline will help retain members and create motivation within the IRT to achieve results.
From ICANN’s perspective, a shorter timeline should also be favourable in terms of costs (with the knock on effect of creating earlier revenues).
I hope we can work on improving the draft plans and establish a more efficient path to present to the Board at ICANN77.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Managing Director
Top Dot Ltd, The Business Terrace, King St, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6JQ
+44 (0)7774 556680
martinsutton@topdotconsulting.com
The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
On 23 May 2023, at 16:14, jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Dear SubPro Team,
Background
I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive.
For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs.
Specific Comments to Workplan
According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping).
It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1:
Predictability - which would include the SPIRT Applicant Freedom of Expression Different TLD Types Conflict of Interest Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) Metrics / Monitoring Dispute Resolution Procedures - Question Why is this not covered in Module 4? Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings IDNs Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (Should be in Module 6) Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately.
But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan).
This is because:
a) Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks
1. Topic 36- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely:
Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....so this affirmation does not require any work. Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - No additional work required Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - No IRT work needed Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1 2. Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here.
1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment.”
This has already been implemented except for one thing.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request.
3. Topic 38: Registrar Support for new TLDs - This one is just an affirmation which requires no new implementation at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer.
Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most
I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report
a) Registry System Testing 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so.
b) TLD Rollout: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. No new implementation work needed .
c) Contractual Compliance - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases (Mostly implemented already).
Module 8: Terms and Condition - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: 3 weeks at most.
4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance
a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed .
b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - Requires no new implementation in advance .
c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. No new work likely.
d) Refunds - This one will require some implementation work to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed.
e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. No real new implementation work.
f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. But no new implementation work here really because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements.
<njmdxlah.png>
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Com Laude Group Limited (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 is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. 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 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>
Colleagues, While I might be something of an Internet Elder, starting with hand-built DOS 1.0 machines, dial-up modems, low earth orbit satellites (LEOS), and with policy development experience, I am a novice when it comes to judging the possible paths and speed of the task before us. I want to thank Jeff for his thoughtful analysis and work strategy suggestions. While I cannot comment on timelines, I too will urge us to consider strategies to move faster, but for other reasons. As an economist and as I become familiar with what might roll out as elements of Web 3 and Smart Pages, I have a growing suspicion that there will be a decline in interest (and competition) for generic TLDs. Brand TLDs will likely still be in demand under whatever terms those might be subject to. Overall, if my suspicions are right, the era of strong competition for gTLDs may be coming to an end. Brand TLDs won’t generate registration revenues like the earlier gTLDs. I may be wrong but I think that diminishing marginal returns will set in, and ICANN will have to adjust to that. Sam Lanfranco -- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E:samlanfranco@gmail.com Lanfran@yorku.ca
Hi all, I have not been able to join these meetings yet, but will be participating going forward as the representative of the IPC. In my personal capacity, I thank Jeff for the detailed analysis here and support his comments, and those of Martin, Anne, Sam etc. that we need to significantly accelerate the proposed timeline. The AGB called for a next round about ten years ago. The SubPro group spent about five years on all of this. This IRT group is supposed to implement policy, not revisit and make policy. There is no reason our work should take two years. Sincerely, Mike [image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:14 PM jeff@jjnsolutions.com < jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Dear SubPro Team,
*Background* I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive.
For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs.
*Specific Comments to Workplan* According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping).
It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1:
- Predictability - which would include the SPIRT - Applicant Freedom of Expression - Different TLD Types - Conflict of Interest - Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) - Metrics / Monitoring - Dispute Resolution Procedures - *Question Why is this not covered in Module 4?* - Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 - GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings - IDNs - Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets - Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (*Should be in Module 6*)
Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately.
But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). *Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan).*
This is because:
a) *Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks* 1. *Topic 36*- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely:
1. Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....s*o this affirmation does not require any work*. 2. Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - *No additional work required* 3. Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - *No IRT work needed* 4. Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. *This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1*
2. *Topic 37:* Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here.
1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment.”
*This has already been implemented except for one thing*.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request.
3. *Topic 38:* *Registrar Support for new TLDs* - This one is just an affirmation which *requires no new implementation *at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer.
*Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most* I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report a) *Registry System Testing* 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so.
b) *TLD Rollout*: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. *No new implementation work needed*.
c) *Contractual Compliance* - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases *(Mostly implemented already*).
*Module 8: Terms and Condition* - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: *3 weeks at most.*
4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance
a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but *if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed*.
b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - *Requires no new implementation in advance*.
c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. *No new work likely.*
d) Refunds - This one will r*equire some implementation work* to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - *Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed.*
e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. *No real new implementation work.*
f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. *But no new implementation work here really *because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements.
1.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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, I apologize for my absence during yesterday's webinar. Due to important official commitments, I was unable to attend. I was travelling at the time, and the unstable internet connection made it impossible for me to join the meeting. I kindly request access to the recorded version of the webinar, as I would like to catch up on the discussions that took place. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:43 AM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I have not been able to join these meetings yet, but will be participating going forward as the representative of the IPC.
In my personal capacity, I thank Jeff for the detailed analysis here and support his comments, and those of Martin, Anne, Sam etc. that we need to significantly accelerate the proposed timeline. The AGB called for a next round about ten years ago. The SubPro group spent about five years on all of this. This IRT group is supposed to implement policy, not revisit and make policy. There is no reason our work should take two years.
Sincerely, Mike
[image: Logo]
Mike Rodenbaugh
address:
548 Market Street, Box 55819
San Francisco, CA 94104
email:
mike@rodenbaugh.com
phone:
+1 (415) 738-8087
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:14 PM jeff@jjnsolutions.com < jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Dear SubPro Team,
*Background* I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive.
For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs.
*Specific Comments to Workplan* According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping).
It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1:
- Predictability - which would include the SPIRT - Applicant Freedom of Expression - Different TLD Types - Conflict of Interest - Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) - Metrics / Monitoring - Dispute Resolution Procedures - *Question Why is this not covered in Module 4?* - Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 - GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings - IDNs - Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets - Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (*Should be in Module 6*)
Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately.
But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). *Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan).*
This is because:
a) *Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks* 1. *Topic 36*- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely:
1. Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....s*o this affirmation does not require any work*. 2. Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - *No additional work required* 3. Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - *No IRT work needed* 4. Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. *This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1*
2. *Topic 37:* Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here.
1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment.”
*This has already been implemented except for one thing*.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request.
3. *Topic 38:* *Registrar Support for new TLDs* - This one is just an affirmation which *requires no new implementation *at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer.
*Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most* I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report a) *Registry System Testing* 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so.
b) *TLD Rollout*: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. *No new implementation work needed*.
c) *Contractual Compliance* - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases *(Mostly implemented already*).
*Module 8: Terms and Condition* - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: *3 weeks at most.*
4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance
a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but *if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed*.
b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - *Requires no new implementation in advance*.
c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. *No new work likely.*
d) Refunds - This one will r*equire some implementation work* to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - *Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed.*
e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. *No real new implementation work.*
f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. *But no new implementation work here really *because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements.
1.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- John Gbadamosi Programme Officer, Digital Rights Media Rights Agenda Internet of Rights (IoR) Fellow Article 19, UK +2348099817296 john@mediarightsagenda.org @Samjohn70
Hi all, I read all the above trail emails, I want to also add some points of mine which might be reflecting the same message shown in the above emails by the team members. 1) The first point is that the time of the meeting should be google calendar sync as well so that no conflict related to time will occur. I wasn't able to attend the meeting IRT 2 because of time conflicts. As I tried conversion to local time as well but still it showed "Admin will let you in" and that didn't happen. So, I request the core member to kindly help with this point.. 2) Another point is related to the timeline of completing the modules. Jeff raised the right points, we can always look for major modules which can cover the larger portion so that we will be able to deliver the same in asked or scheduled time period. 3) We can do one thing by dividing the different work modules section, into different teams, we will be able to handle the tasks on time and in a perfect manner. These are the points on an individual level I feel need to work on, rest I will be positively present in the next meeting for sure. On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:06 PM John Gbadamosi <john@mediarightsagenda.org> wrote:
Dear All,
I apologize for my absence during yesterday's webinar. Due to important official commitments, I was unable to attend. I was travelling at the time, and the unstable internet connection made it impossible for me to join the meeting. I kindly request access to the recorded version of the webinar, as I would like to catch up on the discussions that took place.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> <#m_-9115846655634967118_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:43 AM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I have not been able to join these meetings yet, but will be participating going forward as the representative of the IPC.
In my personal capacity, I thank Jeff for the detailed analysis here and support his comments, and those of Martin, Anne, Sam etc. that we need to significantly accelerate the proposed timeline. The AGB called for a next round about ten years ago. The SubPro group spent about five years on all of this. This IRT group is supposed to implement policy, not revisit and make policy. There is no reason our work should take two years.
Sincerely, Mike
[image: Logo]
Mike Rodenbaugh
address:
548 Market Street, Box 55819
San Francisco, CA 94104
email:
mike@rodenbaugh.com
phone:
+1 (415) 738-8087
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:14 PM jeff@jjnsolutions.com < jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Dear SubPro Team,
*Background* I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive.
For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in 2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the launch of most of those TLDs.
*Specific Comments to Workplan* According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other. And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I am hoping means they will be overlapping).
It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1 overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the following topics seem to be in Module 1:
- Predictability - which would include the SPIRT - Applicant Freedom of Expression - Different TLD Types - Conflict of Interest - Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2) - Metrics / Monitoring - Dispute Resolution Procedures - *Question Why is this not covered in Module 4?* - Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second level is more Module 6 - GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings - IDNs - Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets - Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination (*Should be in Module 6*)
Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately.
But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months total). *Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off 7-10 months off the plan).*
This is because:
a) *Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly believe this can be done in a couple of weeks* 1. *Topic 36*- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2 Recommendations, namely:
1. Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....s*o this affirmation does not require any work*. 2. Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - *No additional work required* 3. Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. - *No IRT work needed* 4. Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability to accommodate changing marketplace. *This one will require a little work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1*
2. *Topic 37:* Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only be here.
1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided, however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public comment.”
*This has already been implemented except for one thing*.....Only thing added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request.
3. *Topic 38:* *Registrar Support for new TLDs* - This one is just an affirmation which *requires no new implementation *at all. It just states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer.
*Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks at most* I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report a) *Registry System Testing* 6 Recommendations here which essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2 recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so.
b) *TLD Rollout*: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done in 2012. *No new implementation work needed*.
c) *Contractual Compliance* - consists of an affirmation of the sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases *(Mostly implemented already*).
*Module 8: Terms and Condition* - Only real work is (d) below. My time estimate: *3 weeks at most.*
4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance
a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being discussed with GNSO/Board, but *if accepted this requires a very limited couple of words being changed*.
b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - *Requires no new implementation in advance*.
c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping things the way they are. *No new work likely.*
d) Refunds - This one will r*equire some implementation work* to define circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the program where such changes materially impact applicants. - *Note this is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and ensuring that is not gamed.*
e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. *No real new implementation work.*
f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. *But no new implementation work here really *because this is standard in all Non-disclosure agreements.
1.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- John Gbadamosi Programme Officer, Digital Rights Media Rights Agenda Internet of Rights (IoR) Fellow Article 19, UK +2348099817296 john@mediarightsagenda.org @Samjohn70 _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
_______________________________________________ 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.
Following up on Mike Rodenbaugh’scomment that “/This IRT group is supposed to implement policy, not revisit and make policy”, /*m**aybe* the group should assign someone (staffor group member) as a “/line referee/” to act as an interlocutor with the responsibility of reminding us when we seem to drift too far into the policy woods. Sam L. -- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E:samlanfranco@gmail.com Lanfran@yorku.ca
I totally agree. It is very important that we do not start discussing policy again. As has been said before, we have an AGB from 2012, and many of the recommendations state that there should be now change from that, or small changes. This should not take too long. Kindly Annebeth L. From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <samlanfranco@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 24 May 2023 at 14:55 To: John Gbadamosi <john@mediarightsagenda.org>, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better...... Following up on Mike Rodenbaugh’s comment that “This IRT group is supposed to implement policy, not revisit and make policy”, maybe the group should assign someone (staff or group member) as a “line referee” to act as an interlocutor with the responsibility of reminding us when we seem to drift too far into the policy woods. Sam L. -- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E: samlanfranco@gmail.com Lanfran@yorku.ca _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list SubPro-IRT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt _______________________________________________ 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.
That is the role of the GNSO Liaison(s). The GNSO Council is meeting at 05:00 UTC tomorrow and I believe on the agenda will be a discussion on the selection of 1 or more Council Liaisons. ------ Original Message ------
From "Sam Lanfranco" <samlanfranco@gmail.com> To "John Gbadamosi" <john@mediarightsagenda.org>; "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Date 5/24/2023 8:54:27 AM Subject Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better......
Following up on Mike Rodenbaugh’s comment that “This IRT group is supposed to implement policy, not revisit and make policy”, maybe the group should assign someone (staff or group member) as a “ line referee ” to act as an interlocutor with the responsibility of reminding us when we seem to drift too far into the policy woods.
Sam L.
-- Sam Lanfranco, Prof Emeritus, York University, Internet Ecologist & Farmer; Web23.io; AshPiedmont Farm, South Bay, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada P:613-476-0429 C:416-816-2852 E: samlanfranco@gmail.comLanfran@yorku.ca
participants (11)
-
Annebeth Lange -
Annebeth Lange -
Barkha Manral -
jeff＠jjnsolutions.com -
John Gbadamosi -
Martin Sutton -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Nigel Hickson -
Roger D Carney -
Sam Lanfranco -
Susan Payne