[APAC-Discuss] Fwd: [ALAC] ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Absolutely
On Jul 30, 2012 3:51 PM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:

> Is this an item that we want to provide comments on?
>
> Holly
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> > Date: 30 July 2012 1:38:19 PM AEST
> > To: alac Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > Subject: [ALAC] ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29jul12-en.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching
> >
> > 29 July 2012
> >
> > Opportunity for Community Input: Processing of New gTLD Applications
> >
> > At the Prague ICANN meeting, the new gTLD Program
> > Committee decided to terminate Digital Archery,
> > and instructed ICANN staff to proceed with the
> > initial evaluation of applications as quickly as
> > possible. This evaluation is in progress based on
> > a tentative project plan that foresees the
> > processing of applications in a single batch, and
> > simultaneous release of results. ICANN believes
> > this approach is consistent with the constraints
> > that various parts of the community have in
> > performing their respective roles in the
> > evaluation process, and with the feedback
> > received from the community at the Prague meeting.
> >
> > This comment opportunity seeks input on
> > requirements for an evaluation and delegation
> > process consistent with previous root zone
> > scaling discussions of smooth delegations, adding
> > no more than 1,000 new gTLDs per year. This outcome can be achieved by
> the:
> >
> >       a. timing of the release of evaluation results to applicants,
> >
> >       b. timing of the release of applications into
> > the pre-delegation steps of contract execution and pre-delegation
> testing,
> >
> >       c. metering of delegations of new gTLDs into the root zone.
> >
> > ICANN is committed to executing the evaluation
> > and delegation process in a way that is equitable
> > and meets ICANN's commitment to ensuring the
> > security and stability of the DNS, consistent
> > with previously established root zone scaling goals.
> >
> > Please write to newgtld-input at icann.org with your
> > input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be
> considered.
> >
> > Background
> >
> > The concept of batching has been a part of the
> > Applicant Guidebook since its first draft. Batching accomplishes three
> goals:
> >
> >       1. Better management of the evaluation process
> > by placing an upper bound on the number of
> > evaluators necessary and the number of parallel
> > evaluations occurring at any one time.
> >
> >       2. Release of evaluation results to applicants
> > according to a predictable schedule.
> >
> >       3. Delegation of TLDs at a rate acceptable to
> > the technical community, consistent with the root zone scaling
> discussion.
> >
> > Based on the definitive information that ICANN
> > now has about the pool of applications, and work
> > on the evaluations to date, this comment process
> > seeks input to meet requirements for goals #2 and #3.
> >
> > Leading up to and during ICANN's meeting in
> > Prague, the applicant and community positions on
> > requirements for batching schemes that would
> > control the evaluation, communication and
> > delegation of applications were reported to be:
> >
> >       a. The batching solution has to be equitable.
> >
> >       b. The evaluation results have to be announced at the same time.
> >
> >       c. Successful applications should proceed to
> > delegation phase without undue delays.
> >
> >       d. Delegation to the root must be at a smooth
> > rate and must not exceed 1,000 per year.
> >
> >       e. The GAC is planning to issue early warnings
> > shortly after the Toronto ICANN meeting in October 2012.
> >
> >       f. Consideration by the GAC of issues concerning
> > GAC advice on contentious applications is not
> > expected to be finalized before the Beijing meeting in April 2013.
> >
> > During the root scaling discussion, it was agreed
> > that ICANN would not delegate TLDs at a rate
> > greater than 1,000 per year. This is because the
> > primary challenge with maintaining root zone
> > stability is controlling the rate of change to
> > the root zone system and not the size of the root
> > zone itself, meaning delegation should not occur
> > at a rate of 1,000 delegations on a single day.
> >
> > In Prague, the batching and prioritization method
> > known as Digital Archery was terminated and
> > eliminated from further consideration.
> >
> > Recent Developments
> >
> > Initial evaluation of new gTLD applications is underway.
> >
> > Applications are being distributed to evaluators
> > in a way that enables efficient processing.
> >
> > ICANN has conducted pilot evaluations and had
> > discussions with evaluators to accelerate the
> > evaluation schedule. As a result of these
> > discussions, the evaluation teams have committed
> > to accelerate the evaluations substantially,
> > while processing them in a single batch.
> >
> > In Prague, a methodology was discussed where the
> > smooth delegation of applications could occur by
> > first releasing applications that passed initial
> > evaluation without the need for clarifying
> > questions, then releasing applications in order
> > of the number of clarifying questions required,
> > from fewest to highest. After analysis, this
> > methodology proved unworkable because 80% to 90%
> > of the total evaluation time is required to form
> > and ask clarifying questions, so little smoothing would result.
> >
> > The current plan indicates that initial
> > evaluation of all applications, processed in a
> > "single batch", can be completed in 11-12 months,
> > possibly less ­ resulting in publication of results in June-July 2013.
> >       Note: It is planned that regular updates to
> > applicants during the evaluation period will be
> > provided. In addition to written reports, ICANN
> > is looking into the use of a webinar / conference
> > call format to deliver updates.
> >
> > For applicants, releasing results in a single
> > batch would mean that the first delegations would
> > occur in late third quarter of 2013, six months later than originally
> expected.
> >
> > Implications of GAC timing:
> >
> >       The GAC plans to "issue any Early Warnings
> > shortly after the Toronto ICANN meeting, in
> > October 2012," meaning that Early Warnings would
> > be received within the currently planned single evaluation period.
> >
> >       Also, the GAC "is considering the implications
> > of providing any GAC advice on gTLD applications.
> > These considerations are not expected to be
> > finalized before the Beijing meeting in April
> > 2013." This is shortly before the currently
> > planned announcement of initial evaluation
> > results (i.e., the schedule without additional
> > accelerations beyond those stated above).
> >
> > Statement of the Issue
> >
> > While there will be some natural smoothing as
> > applications take different paths through
> > objections and contention resolution processes,
> > there will still be a requirement for some method
> > of metering applications into the delegation
> > process. This is due to the relatively high
> > number of applications that may reach
> > pre-delegation steps at essentially the same
> > time. A metering method has not yet been
> > determined and will need to be developed.
> >
> > Questions to be answered by comments
> >
> > Submitted comments should specifically answer each of the following
> questions:
> >
> >       1. Should the metering or smoothing consider
> > releasing evaluation results, and transitioning
> > applications into the contract execution and
> > pre-delegation testing phases, at different times?
> >
> >               a. How can applications be allocated to
> > particular release times in a fair and equitable way?
> >
> >               b. Would this approach provide sufficient smoothing of the
> delegation rate?
> >
> >               c. Provide reasoning for selecting this approach.
> >
> >       2. Should the metering or smoothing be
> > accomplished by downstream metering of
> > application processing (i.e., in the contract
> > execution, pre-delegation testing or delegation phases)?
> >
> >               a. How can applications be allocated to a
> > particular timing in contract execution,
> > pre-delegation testing, or delegation in a fair and equitable way?
> >
> >               b. Provide reasoning for selecting this approach.
> >
> >       3. Include a statement describing the level of
> > importance that the order of evaluation and
> > delegation has for your application.
> >
> > Please write to newgtld-input at icann.org with your
> > input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be
> considered.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> APAC-Discuss mailing list
> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
>
> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
>