<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Dear WT4 Members,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Please see a subsequent response from ICANN org in support of the WT4 request below.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='color:black'>“As a follow-on to the March 20<sup>th</sup>, 2018 message, the Supplemental Notes materials referenced in that message are now located at </span><span style='color:#4472C4'><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/gggFBQ">https://community.icann.org/x/gggFBQ</a></span><span style='color:black'>. In addition, we are providing WT4 with FAQs, Knowledge Articles, and Reference Materials previously published in the SugarCRM knowledge base. </span><i><span style='font-size:11.5pt;color:black'>These materials are historical information that ICANN org is providing to </span></i><i><span style='color:black'>WT4</span></i><i><span style='font-size:11.5pt;color:black'> to inform PDP deliberations.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;color:black'>Once you navigate to the link above, you will see that there are separate Wiki page for FAQs, Knowledge Articles, Reference Materials, and Supplemental Notes. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;color:black'>Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;color:black'>Steve</span><b><span style='color:#4472C4'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 4:05 PM<br><b>To: </b>"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear WT4 Members,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Per the WT’s request to ICANN Org in the email below, please find their response directly below and information/resources compiled to date attached. The information/resources can also be found on the topic specific Wiki page here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw">https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Steve<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><i><span style='color:black'>**</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:black'> </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><i><span style='color:black'>As per your request sent via Steve Chan on 9 February 2018, attached is a compilation of existing and published information and resources regarding application questions and clarifying questions. Please note that the Supplemental Notes information referenced in the document is not yet available. This information was hosted in our old CRM system, which has been decommissioned. It is taking longer than we thought to bring this system back up online, but we continue to work with our IT team on this. We will provide you with the links to the Supplemental Notes for all application questions once the system is back up online. In the meantime, we are sending you all other information and resources relevant to this request.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org><br><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 4:41 PM<br><b>To: </b>Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailOriginalBody"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Dear WT4 Members,</span><o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>For those that may have missed the last call, as noted below in the action items, it was decided that in relation to WT4’s request for data related to clarifying questions, it would be pursuing option 1, “Compile and share existing information and resources regarding application questions and clarifications.” Please see a fuller description here: </span></span><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735969/ICANN%20Org%20Response%20to%20WT4%20CQ%20Data%20Request.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1517425699000&api=v2"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735969/ICANN%20Org%20Response%20to%20WT4%20CQ%20Data%20Request.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1517425699000&api=v2</span></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Note, this does not preclude WT4 from seeking additional clarifying question information it deems necessary, which could include options in the letter referenced above and/or other options.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Best,</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Steve </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>From: </span></b></span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org><br><b>Date: </b>Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:08 PM<br><b>To: </b>"gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org><br><b>Subject: </b>[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018</span><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Dear Work Track members,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript.</i> See the chat transcript and recording at: </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB"><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB</span><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'></span></a><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included below.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b> </b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'><b>Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 05 February 2018</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Action Items:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1) CQ Options: Agreement for Option 1: Compile existing info regarding questions and CQs (what was done for PIRR); but doesn't preclude other options; consider survey question for the survey of applicants in option 5.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>2) RSSAC paper: Clarifying question -- Ask the RSSAC to provide clarify on what it meant re: 5%. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Notes:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>1. SOI Updates: No updates.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>2. Review of Technical Services suggestions for additional technical criteria (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 5: Responses from Technical Services<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- 8 recommendations regarding Registry System Testing and 3 regarding Application Evaluation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- RST recommendations mostly linked to Registry Service Provider (RSP) program -- sync with WT1 and/or full WG.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- 1 Application Evaluation recommendation linked to RSP.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- 1 Application Evaluation recommendation about using RSEP for Registry Services Evaluation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Other Application Recommendation about 0-1 scoring instead of 0-1-2 from Program Implementation Review Report (PIRR) and accepted by WT4.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>3. Review of Operations responses for request on CQs (also available at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58735969)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slides 6-7: Responses from Operations<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- As for full text of CQs and answers for the questions with published answers and counts of CAs and answers for questions without published answers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 8: Possible Ways Forward<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Insist on initial request but allow for redaction of content that mixes public and private responses.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Pick either option 2 (staff review) or 3 (3rd party review).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Other options?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Continue working on known issues such as 0-1-2 scoring, Q30b (Security Policy) and Financial Evaluation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Difficult to get additional funds in the budget, so precludes 2 and 4.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Combine 1 with a survey of applicants.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Change option 5 to survey of new registries.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Possible option: Select options but in addition the bullet on slide 8 about requesting that during implementation other studies might be needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- What policy question are we trying to answer? Need to know which problems need policy decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>From the Chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: My recommendation was combining 1 and 5<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: ok. I thought a combo of 1 and 5 was the way to go which cost the least amount of money<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): 5. might not work - it was quite long ago (many applicants were consultants and have no contract since then)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): combination options can be discussed and proposed of course <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Rubens Kuhl: Any combination is fine, any new option is fine too. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so .5 might be changed to survey of new Registries<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: @maxim - true, but they still have email addresses on file. If they dont work, then they dont work<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: I think we should try to reach out to the failed ones. In some ways, their feedback would be more valuable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: There were not too many failed applications<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kurt Pritz: You can ignore this if it will drag us backward; what policy question are we trying to answer by reading the CQs? The answer to that would govern which option is selected<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, if applicant is not equal to Registry - most probably they might have no real life info from the current registry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: Kurt - Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to make recommendations that will improve the questions asked in the previous round so as to make the questions more clear and to provide the information that was actually sought by the evaluators. It is hoped that this would reduce the number of CQs the next time<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point @Steve <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: For example, if the same CQ was asked to 80% of the applicants, chances are that the problem was in the question and not the answers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly @Jeff <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Trang Nguyen: If the goal is to understand what the issues were with questions, Option 1 would provide the most direct answer. Org published advisories on the issues that were encountered most frequently by applicants. That together with statistics on the number of CQs could help to identify the issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: @Trang - Agree that we need option 1 and I believe option 5 will also help.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): COI related questions were good example of wrong ones (where all companies had to change their letters of credit few times)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): 1 as a priority and 5 as. following recommendation? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Could we update .5 with - ask the Registry - if it is Ok to ask Applicant or them ?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Trang Nguyen: @Jeff, option 5 could be useful as well. It hadn't occurred to me before, but now thinking about it, doing 5 during implementation may be even more impactful. Any changes to the questions based on policy recs could be made, then published for public comment, during which we could ask whether any formulation of the questions need clarification.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Martin Sutton: @Trang - agree that 1 is a sensible option, with option 5 to add more context to CQs they may have responded to.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): certainly could @Maxim <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Martin Sutton: @maxim - I recall COI triggering the most CQs, which was mainly as a result of inadequate instructions provided in the first place.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>4. Review of responses for delegation rate and maximum number of TLDs (available at https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 10: ICANN Org<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Mostly discussed application processing limits, not root zone scaling.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Mentioned a relevant change: the increasing use of root zone replication to resolvers (RFC 7706) -- also applies to RFC 7816 (DNS query minimization)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Says determining scaling capacity would require significant effort that might not be worthwhile since application processing limitations will likely be reached before any limitation becomes an issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- No response to root zone size question.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 11: SSAC<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ICANN should continue developing the monitoring and early warning capability with respect to root zone scaling.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ICANN should focus on the rate of change for the root zone, rather than the total number of delegated strings for a given calendar year.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ICANN should structure its obligations to new gTLD registries so that it can delay their addition to the root zone in case of DNS service instabilities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- ICANN should investigate and catalog the long term obligations of maintaining a larger root zone.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 12: RSSAC<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Confirmed deployment of root zone system monitoring.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Suggested adopting a monthly thinking instead of per annum.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Recommended 5% per month growth rate (target, not ceiling).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Strong recommendation on keeping allowed DNS records at root zone to a minimum (not related to TLS zone contents).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Suggests possiblity of delaing or removing delegations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- On zone size, is more concerned of possible TLDs becoming as popular ast .com/.net/.org than zone size, although unsure of effects for flattening DNS namespace.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- 3 non-technical questions referred to full WG and/or other WTs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 13: Recommendations not incompatible with GNSO policy or each other<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Monitoring and early warning of the root zone system (RSSAC & SSAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Delaying or removing delegations that cause instability (SSAC & RSSAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- More focus on change rate over smaller time periods than annually (SSAC and RSSAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- 5% monthly growth rate target (RSSAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Maintain conservative approach to DNS records in the root zone (RSSAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Slide 14: Recommendations incompatible with GNSO policy or each other<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Application processing limitations will already avoid issues (ICANN Org x SSAC and RSSAC).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Investigate long term obligations of larger root zone prior to new delegations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- These are opinions not based on research; they are conservative. From a risk management perspective that is not necessarily a bad thing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>-- Discuss further the 5% monthly growth rate face-to-face with representatives with RSSAC and SSAC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): what was the justification for 5%? any ?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Martin, the requirements changes over the time - which is not good<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *changed<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): why not 7% or 10%?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: This may be a stupid question, but is gorwth rate strictly limited to adding new TLDs, or does it include adding new records (like DNSSEC records)? If so, according to some rudimentary calculations on a spread sheet, it would take only 5 years to delegate 25,000 new TLDs at a growth rate of 5% per month<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Christa Taylor: +1 Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Christa Taylor: This would have some significant impacts to the delegation of new gTLDs <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kurt Pritz: I did some rough calculations that are close but not exact: if the 5% requirement was imposed inthe 2012 round, some TLDs would have been delayed a year beyond the date when they were actually delegated and the backlog created (as compared to the actual delegations) would have taken 3 years to clear<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and 5% gives 50 per month and 790 per year ... which is lower than 1000 , and thus it is not correct from perspective of 1000 per year is ok<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *per first year<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *ofr the first year :)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: @maxim, the 5% is cumulative<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: If you start at 1200 and increase 5% per month, it would take 62 months to delegte 25,000 new gTLDs<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff, my point that this number is not based on a research<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): it is just "we think 5% should be safe" - which is an opinion and not something calculated<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): Could we request from RSSAC the method they used to calculate this particular threshold?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: at 6%, it would be take 53 months<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): 5% will detoriate the speed of delegation from 1000per year<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): and that 1000 was not properly justified too <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: at 7% per month, that would take 48 months for 25000 TLDs<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): @Jeff I am afraid that they meant 5% of the starting amount (not cumulative)... <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: I interpreted it at 5% per month<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I read as a " from now on" point as well @Rubens <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): so it is not 1.05*1.05 but simply 1*1.05<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: 5% from original amount is less than 1000 per ye<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: Look at the chart on page 7<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): *risk<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kurt Pritz: I am with Maxim about asking for the methodology to arrive at this number. If there is a methodology, then the number is a starting point for discussion, as Cheryl says. If it is an opinion without basis, then it is not a starting point<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Jeff Neuman: of the RSSAC paper<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Steve Chan: @Maxim, the RSSAC paper is available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735967/RSSAC031%20FINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1517582919000&api=v2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Kurt Pritz: In the 2012 round 35-40% was acceptable in the first month of delegations<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Rubens Kuhl: Do the resolution mentioned what would happen with the current work in progress at SSAC, asked by the board at November 2017 ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Rubens Kuhl: The graph on the appendix of the RSSAC suggestion makes clear which interpretation it is, which is (1+5%) to the power of number of months. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Christa Taylor: Maxim +1 - s/b linear<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>5. AOB: Board decision on .corp, .home, and .mail -- not to be delegated in a next round and deposits will be refunded. Staff will provide links to the resolution when available.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Rubens Kuhl: Do the resolution mentioned what would happen with the current work in progress at SSAC, asked by the board at November 2017 ? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody'>Rubens Kuhl: (on home/corp/mail)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>