Page History

...

• A community member asked if 3.4 of the Draft Plan (Strategic Goal 3.4— Plan a properly funded, managed, and risk-evaluated new round of gTLDs) assumed that a New gTLD application round will be conducted, or if that would be a separate decision at the operational level. Theresa clarified that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP) and other community dialogue on this topic were still underway, and the Draft Plan was taking reference from this community dialogue. Pam Little (Generic Names Supporting Organization Council Member) highlighted that this question was also raised to within the GNSO Council. She explained the decision-making process of the PDP and personally encouraged the community to respect the ongoing PDP. Discussions on implementation for the next round would be premature given that the recommendations for the next round had yet to be submitted to the GNSO Council (and subsequently the ICANN Board).
• Cheryl Langdon-Orr (New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP [Sub Pro] Working Group co-chair) raised that within the Sub Pro Working Group, there were discussions to reconsider giving priority to Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) top-level domains (TLDs) during the subsequent New gTLD application round. She said this in reference to 3Strategic Goal 3.1 of the Strategic Plan: “Encourage (Encourage readiness for Universal Acceptance, IDN implementation and IPv6 by increasing awareness to enable more end users to use the Internet”Internet).
• In response to Edmon’s question on what some significant changes from the current Plan to the Draft Plan were, Theresa said that the Draft Plan had been created to adapt and operate in a post-IANA stewardship transition environment. Other significant changes include the consideration of technological changes, DNS marketplace changes, and a new emphasis on topics such as Universal Acceptance (UA) and IDNs. These changes reflect the evolution of ICANN’s work and the DNS.
• Related to the strategic focus area on ‘Governance’, a community member asked how possibly competing values could be balanced, e.g., inclusivity and openness being balanced against efficiency and effectiveness. Community working groups often struggled to balance these values in their work. The Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, which adopted a closed membership system for efficiency and where APAC contracted parties were under-represented, was cited as an example. Theresa answered that such balancing could be operationalized through collaborative dialogue with ICANN community, ICANN Board, and ICANN Org on priorities. She further encouraged that community raise their views as public comments for the draft Strategic Plan and during the community discussion in ICANN64 Kobe.  Edmon added that developing early warning systems such as through ICANN Org’s Legislative/Regulatory Development Reports as mentioned in the Draft Plan may help to reduce the need for EPDPs in the future.  Theresa also said that the Strategic Planning process would allow ICANN to discuss and prioritize activities that align with the new Strategic Goals.
• Another community member commented that the Draft Plan seemed to depict the multistakeholder model as becoming less effective and more expensive as it grows in scale in response to the increasing needs of community. This was contrary to the At-Large community’s goal of increasing community participation and representation. Furthermore, budget cuts were already being made to community work. Theresa replied that this was a result of feedback from during the trends discussions as observations or concerns that may have future impact on ICANN. She also encouraged the community member to raise this point through the public comment process.

...