<div dir="ltr">Hi Avri,<div><br></div><div>thank you for sharing this, can you please give the context and explain why this report matters? I think that will be helpful to many members to get btter understanding about it.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best Regards,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div dir="ltr">Rafik <br></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-23 4:00 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [council] FW: GNSO update - New gTLD subsequent rounds<br>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:56:58 +0000<br>
From: Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
Dear All,<br>
<br>
Please find below a message from Karen Lentz submitting the new gTLD status<br>
report (see attached) as requested by the GNSO Council. If you have any<br>
questions in advance of Thursday's meeting, please feel free to share those<br>
so we can make sure that Karen is in a position to address these during the<br>
call.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Marika<br>
<br>
From: Karen Lentz <<a href="mailto:karen.lentz@icann.org">karen.lentz@icann.org</a>><br>
Date: Monday 22 September 2014 18:47<br>
To: Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a>><br>
Cc: Steve Chan <<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: FW: GNSO update - New gTLD subsequent rounds<br>
<br>
Marika,<br>
<br>
Following up on this email, I¹m attaching the status report in response to<br>
the GNSO¹s London motion, rounding out the areas provided in my last update.<br>
Sections B and E are where most of the new information is since that update.<br>
I am planning to be on the Council call on 25 September to walk through the<br>
report and answer any questions.<br>
<br>
We are also expecting to publish this week a draft Work Plan for New gTLD<br>
Program reviews, which incorporates many of the same areas described in this<br>
report, and invite the Council to review and provide input on that document<br>
as well.<br>
<br>
There will also be a session focused on discussion of these plans during the<br>
upcoming ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles. I hope this is helpful; please<br>
let me know of any additional questions.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Karen<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Karen Lentz<br>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:46 PM<br>
To: Marika Konings<br>
Subject: GNSO update - New gTLD subsequent rounds<br>
<br>
Dear Marika,<br>
<br>
I wanted to provide an update on the request for a status report from staff<br>
as part of the GNSO Council¹s motion on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds during<br>
the ICANN 50 meeting in London<br>
(<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406</a>). This included status<br>
reporting on: (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN's anticipated<br>
timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the<br>
Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of<br>
the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review<br>
of the Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN's current projection for a<br>
timetable for subsequent rounds.<br>
<br>
This relates to a number of activities that are under way and we expect to<br>
be able to deliver the complete report in mid-September. Here are some<br>
notes and updates on each of the points below:<br>
<br>
(a) The New gTLD Program generally<br>
<br>
As of last week, 373 TLDs have been delegated, 491 applicants have entered<br>
registry agreements, and 1321 applications are currently in process through<br>
the program. Updated statistics are published on a weekly basis at<br>
<a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics" target="_blank">http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics</a>, with the detail<br>
according to volume of applications within the various stages. If there are<br>
any specific points that the GNSO would like covered in the portion of the<br>
report on the status of the program, please let me know.<br>
<br>
<br>
(b) ICANN¹s anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in<br>
Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments<br>
<br>
Preparations for this review have been under way for some time, beginning<br>
with the Board¹s request for advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on<br>
establishing definitions, measures, and targets for competition, consumer<br>
trust and consumer choice in the context of the DNS<br>
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-12-10-en#6" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-12-10-en#6</a><br>
<<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-12-10-en%23" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2010-12-10-en%23</a><br>
6> ). This resulted in recommendations from both the GNSO and ALAC,<br>
whereupon the Board formed the Implementation Advisory Group on Competition,<br>
Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (IAG-CCT) in September 2013 to review<br>
those recommended metrics and make recommendations to the review team based<br>
on an evaluation of the feasibility, utility and cost-effectiveness of each<br>
of the proposed 70 metrics. The IAG-CCT has paid particular attention to<br>
baselines, to ensure that data is collected that will be important for<br>
benchmarking the impact of the New gTLD Program in these areas. The IAG-CCT<br>
provided an interim recommendation for a consumer survey and an economic<br>
study to help capture baseline data; this recommendation was approved by the<br>
Board in March 2014<br>
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-03-27-en#2" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-03-27-en#2</a>.<br>
c<br>
<<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-03-27-en%23" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-03-27-en%23</a><br>
2.c> ). The Final Report of the IAG-CCT is expected to be provided to the<br>
Board in October, for consideration during the ICANN 51 meeting in Los<br>
Angeles.<br>
<br>
ICANN is conducting an open RFP process to engage providers for the consumer<br>
survey (see <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rfps-2012-02-25-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rfps-2012-02-25-en</a>), and<br>
the RFP is in development for the economic study and expected to be<br>
published within the next two weeks. For the additional set of metrics<br>
recommended where baselines are necessary, and that relate to in-house data,<br>
staff is already in the process of compiling the data as well as planning<br>
for tools for update and presentation of that data.<br>
<br>
In addition to the areas of competition, consumer trust, and consumer<br>
choice, the review in 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments includes review<br>
of the effectiveness of the application and evaluation process, and of<br>
safeguards put in place in the program to mitigate issues. These relate to<br>
areas discussed below in (c) and (d).<br>
<br>
<br>
(c) ICANN¹s work to date on any evaluation of the first round<br>
<br>
Staff¹s work in reviewing the program to date has focused on operations,<br>
efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. We¹ve also identified a preliminary set<br>
of review areas that would benefit from in-depth discussions about these<br>
elements of the program¹s implementation. As reviewing the program¹s<br>
operations covers a large number of detailed considerations across a broad<br>
range of topics, we are still determining how to best organize the subject<br>
areas and review questions so that they can be logically considered and<br>
presented to the community for input. To date, staff has held debriefing<br>
sessions with all of the panels who performed the Initial and Extended<br>
Evaluation processes so that these provider insights and identification of<br>
areas for additional consideration can also be taken into account.<br>
<br>
<br>
(d) The work to date on the post-launch independent review of the<br>
Trademark Clearinghouse<br>
<br>
This comes from GAC advice, where an independent review was proposed to take<br>
place ³one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round.² (This<br>
would be February 2015, which is the current target for this review.) A few<br>
other activities are in process relating to rights protection that are also<br>
relevant. First is a standing GNSO request for an Issue Report reviewing<br>
all rights protection mechanisms (current and developed for the New gTLD<br>
Program) including the UDRP and URS, to be delivered 18 months after the<br>
first delegation of new gTLDs (which occurred in October 2013). We are on<br>
target to have significant analysis done by this time (April 2015) to inform<br>
the creation of this Issue Report. Second, as noted above, effectiveness of<br>
the safeguards put in place for the New gTLD Program is a topic for<br>
consideration under the 9.3 Affirmation of Commitments review, and the<br>
analysis in progress is expected to be another input to that effort. In<br>
light of the above, staff is well under way in compiling data on the usage<br>
of the new rights protection mechanisms in the program (e.g., provider<br>
statistics, review of frequent customer service questions, issues raised in<br>
user feedback) and expects that this analysis will serve as groundwork for a<br>
number of purposes, including the above independent review. A discussion<br>
session on this topic is slated for the ICANN 51 meeting in Los Angeles.<br>
<br>
<br>
(e) ICANN¹s current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds<br>
<br>
These projections are still in process. As many of these activities are<br>
interrelated, sequencing and scheduling the activities in a logical and<br>
efficient way can take several paths. Additional activities, such as a root<br>
stability review, have not been discussed in the topics above but also have<br>
an impact. We do expect to publish a projected overall timetable, as well<br>
as timelines for the individual tracks mentioned here, and will make sure<br>
that this is included in the report to be delivered.<br>
<br>
Also, we note that the Discussion Group formed by the GNSO motion referenced<br>
above has been convened and intends to work on issue identification and<br>
categorization as a preface to any policy development work that may be<br>
pursued by the GNSO, and will follow those developments closely.<br>
<br>
I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to pass this on to the<br>
Council and if there is any additional clarification or input needed to<br>
support the GNSO work, please don¹t hesitate to reach out.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Karen<br>
<br>
Karen Lentz<br>
Director, Operations & Policy Research<br>
ICANN<br>
+1 310 301 5836 office<br>
+1 310 895 3637 mobile<br>
<a href="mailto:karen.lentz@icann.org">karen.lentz@icann.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>