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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

>From the work of the IRTP-C which had 3 controversial and difficult technical questions, I have seen that by working weekly, we are closing in on a much quicker schedule.  Also the historical data Alan shows is from before the new PDP structures were created.

Of course Alan might be right, past performance, though, is not proof of future performance.  I contend that if we go into this with a base level that says two and only two organizations already have base level protections at the second level, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate in a PDP that might give them less.  This is a prescription for a never ending PDP.  On the other had if we go in with a mandate to work to the optimal schedule, I argue, there is a chance.  Note, I did not call for the minimum 7 month possibility best case PDP scenario, I am estimating 9-12 months.  I am also not estimating the optimal processing schedule for new gTLDs.  While looking at schedule, I propose we also look at the speed of the new gTLD project and its ability to always take the longer time possible. I prose we also avoid planning on the shortest possible race to the root. I think that I am being moderate in my both estimates.  Yes, my estimates make it close.

Additionally, while I think it highly inappropriate for the Board, though within its by-laws prerogative, to take action before the PDP has started, I would not necessary have the same argument if the PDP had already made initial recommendations in draft report, for the Board to make an emergency decision based on the predicted outcome of a process that was in in its clean-up end game.

Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki:
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

Avri Doria