Versions Compared

Old Version 4

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 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. 

...

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.”

...

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. 

...

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. 

...

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.

...