[ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th

[Alan Greenberg]

Here are some figures that may be of interest for our discussion 
tomorrow. Avri had replied to my question about the basis fir her 
belief that the IGO PDP would be done before new gTLD delegation. She 
did not copy the ALAC, but has said it was an accidental omission and 
I am including her reply below.

Current estimates that I have heard indicate that the first TLD 
agreements may be signed in the latter half of next year and be read 
for Sunrise soon thereafter (allowing trademark owners to protect 
their names) and general registration soon after. Avri's estimate is 
just a bit longer. Note however, that Sunrise and registration can 
start before the names enter the root.

It is estimated that the absolute shortest time a PDP could take is 
191 days (about 6 /12 months) from the time the Final Issue Report is 
released until the time the recommendations got to the Board). That 
presumes that all deliberations take place during the same 5 weeks 
that SG have to submit statements on their opinions (allowing no time 
to take those statements into account), the reports is written in a 
week, and there are no receiving action from the GNSO or Board. This 
is for a simple PDP with virtually no discussion needed to resolve 
the issue. The time from the request of an Issue Report (again with 
minimal delays) is 263 days or 9 months.

The time for a more typical PDP is estimated at 1 year longer. These 
figures can be found as attachments to 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13099.html.

To see what real PDPs have taken, see the other attachment. Note that 
all of these were done under the old PDP rules which allowed for a 
significantly shorter process.

The shortest ones in recent history took 415 days. One added a 
clarification sentence to a reason for allowing a Registrar to deny a 
transfer 
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct08.shtml). The 
other, the PDP on Domain Tasting was resolved primarily by private 
discussions and two registries voluntarily implementing the 
"solution" which was then echoed by the PDP. There was very little 
discussion other than to identify an effective way of addressing the 
problem without unreasonably penalizing Registrars who were not 
participating in Tasting.

The other two, far more substantive, took 2.4 to 3 years (as noted, 
according to the old, and more streamlined PDP rules).

By any measure (if only based on the amount of discussion this issue 
has raised in the ALAC), the IGO protection issue is not an easy one 
where all parties will agree quickly. The only possible exception to 
this is if all parties come to the table believing that no additional 
protections are needed, and can QUICKLY address all of the process 
that is being included in the Issue Report.

If indeed the PDP completes in record time, then the provisions of 
the compromise proposal of the RC/IOC DT would never kick in, since 
they would be replaced by whatever comes out of the PDP.

Alan

At 24/09/2012 12:37 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>PDP can be done in 9-12 months.
>New TLDs in root, not until end 13, beginning 14.
>
>At 23/09/2012 09:05 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>Avri,
>
>Can you share your reasoning with us? Specifically, how long are you 
>predicting the PDP will take from the time it is approved by 
>Council, and when do you believe the first TLDs will enter their 
>sunrise period accepting reservations for 2nd level names?
>
>Alan
>
>At 19/09/2012 09:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>Unlike Alan, I beleive that a PDP can complete in time.