Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Nanig Mehranian

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Nanig Mehranian

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Overview

ICANN org shared the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Planning Assumptions Version 1.0 (v.1.0) with the ICANN Board in May 2019. Between June and September 2019, ICANN org shared these assumptions with the below listed members of the ICANN community and in turn received input from various parts of the community.  

...


Summary of Community Feedback on Planning Assumptions v.1.0 (Jun – Sep 2019)

ICANN org shared the assumptions with several parts of the community and received either verbal or written feedback from the majority of those to whom the assumptions were shared. Their feedback is described below:

By Constituency Groups

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)

ICANN org discussed the Assumptions Paper with the ALAC at ICANN65, as well as on a subsequent webinar on 8 August 2019. The ALAC raised concerns about ICANN org beginning to prepare and plan for subsequent procedures when the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (WG) has not completed its work. The ALAC also said that additional  study on the “safe pace of new strings” is needed. ALAC’s other comments centered around application volume and seeking further clarity for the assumptions on outsourcing. 

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) 

ICANN org received feedback from the Business Constituency within the CSG via correspondence. In relation to the assumptions, the Business Constituency asked for ICANN org’s insight into the application volume assumption. 

The Business Constituency (BC) raised issues in its correspondence beyond the assumptions, regarding prerequisites to the next round. The BC suggested these should include Universal Acceptance, Consumer Competition, Consumer Choice and Trust review recommendations, and other committed reviews: “all previously committed reviews of the prior round should be completed, and recommendations from those reviews should be approved by the ICANN Board.” The Business Constituency emphasized its expectation that issues associated with the previous round will be significantly addressed before a new round is opened.

Contracted Parties House 

The Registries Stakeholder group (RySG) sent a letter supporting ICANN org’s planning efforts and the transparency around them. The RySG acknowledged that the “assumptions may prove to be incorrect” and suggested that ICANN “reflect the degree of certainty it has in each of the assumptions” and “develop a plan for addressing situations that vary with the assumptions.” The RySG suggested that ICANN org consider putting a contingency plan in place in the event that some of the assumptions turn out to be incorrect. Additionally, this group mentioned that “the planning process not only makes sense from a business perspective, but is the only way that ICANN will be in a position to ultimately launch the program without undue delay.” 

Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council 

ICANN org was invited to speak to the GNSO Council regarding the assumptions on 22 August 2019. The discussion with the GNSO Council centered around application volume and whether there was supported data research or analysis behind the expectation of 2,000 applications in the opening of the next round. Furthermore, it was suggested that the costs associated with staffing and resourcing of 2,000 applications versus 500 applications are significantly different. Additionally, the GNSO Council inquired whether ICANN org had investigated the possibility of delegating more than 1,000 TLDs annually.  

Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) 

ICANN org discussed the Assumptions Paper with the GAC at ICANN65. The discussion centered around application volume and the nexus between the assumptions and the work of the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. After the discussion at ICANN65, the GAC also sent a subsequent communication indicating that it is “currently working on recalling previous GAC advice pertaining to specific sections in the assumptions document for ICANN’s consideration.”

GNSO Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group 

ICANN org discussed the Assumptions Paper with the PDP Working Group at ICANN65. The PDP Working Group was generally supportive of ICANN org’s work on the assumptions. The discussion with the PDP Working Group was primarily centered around cost recovery, application volume, and delegation rate. 

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) 

ICANN org did not receive any feedback from the NCSG.

Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) 

ICANN org received correspondence from the RSSAC with comments on the assumption around delegation rate: “The RSSAC maintains its view that, “[d]elegations ‘per annum’ is the wrong way to think about the problem because it could lead to very sudden changes depending on its implementation. It would be better to think in terms of changes over smaller periods of time (e.g., monthly). [...] The rate of change is more important than absolute magnitude.” The RSSAC went on to point ICANN org to RSSAC031, which offered detailed responses to questions posed by the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on the new Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) Subsequent Procedures concerning root scaling.

Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) 

ICANN org received correspondence from the SSAC also commenting on the assumption around continuing the 1000 TLDs/year delegation rate:

It remains the view of SSAC that the rate of 1000/yr was decided solely for administrative reasons and has no relevance for the security of the root zone. The SSAC’s advice on this topic is captured in SAC100: SSAC Response to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Request Regarding Root Scaling. The four recommendations, which are still valid as of this date, are: 

(1) ICANN should continue developing the monitoring and early warning capability with respect to root zone scaling. 

(2) ICANN should focus on the rate of change for the root zone, rather than the total number of delegated strings for a given calendar year. 

(3) ICANN should structure its obligations to new gTLD registries so that it can delay their addition to the root zone in case of DNS service instabilities. As stated in SAC100, “...ICANN should study the possibility of backing out, or undoing, changes to the root zone should complications with a change arise. This recommendation and the latter proposed study (see recommendation 4 below) should be completed prior to increasing the number of delegations in the root zone.”

(4) ICANN should investigate and catalog the long term obligations of maintaining a larger root zone.

...

The SSAC went on to point ICANN org to SAC103, SSAC Response to the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Initial Report. 

Unrelated to the planning assumptions, the SSAC stated in its feedback that “it remains a significant concern for the SSAC that the last round of new gTLDs appears to have introduced the phenomenon of TLDs with exceptionally high rates of abusive registrations. It is also not clear if the ICANN community is effectively addressing these potential threats and risks or what kind of deliberation will occur on how to mitigate them through consensus policy or contractual negotiation. The SSAC continues to be concerned that a further round of new gTLDs could be delegated prior to comprehensive metrics and mitigations being put in place to prevent such a recurrence. To assist the community, the SSAC is planning to study this issue and provide advice accordingly.”

Community Feedback Key Themes

The below listed items reference New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Planning Assumptions v.1.0.

Application Volume (Assumption 2.2): The document generated questions about the rationale for the assumption that the application volume (2,000 applications) will be roughly the same as in the 2012 round. Some community members interpreted this as an estimate rather than a working assumption used for planning and sought more information on the basis for the assumption. Other community members suggested market research or other means to establish more basis for any estimates, and some questioned how ICANN org will continue its planning with the volume unknown.

...