Hi Avri,

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.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2014-09-23 4:00 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>:

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