Hi,

I do not know if it is important to NCSG members.  I forward it on, not
because I think it is necessarily important, but because it is
information I have that they should have so they can determine whether
they think it is important enough for them, in a bottom-up sort of way
to talk about.  Of course I did not need to forward it, perhaps it is
enough that they can find it by reading the council archives, so why
clutter this list.  If that was your meaning, apologies, I will be more
careful in the future.

I wonder though, how can people act in a bottom-up way, if they are not
given the information to decide whether something matters to them.  That
is why I pass things on.

AS far as I can tell it gives data related to possible future rounds and
discusses somewhat what the process leading up that might look like.
Interesting timetables.   I have only perused it and have not formed any
views on it or its importance yet.  It might just be vacuous fluff (not
likely but possible) But I figure better to just send the reference than
wait until I know whether it mattered or not.

sincerely

avri



On 22-Sep-14 16:04, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>