[Newgtld-input] ICANN Seeks input on gTLD Batching

[Teeraphong March Mahatham]

Dear ICANN,
 
We appreciate the opportunity to voice our comment regarding the application
process.  We actually have one more comment: one way to achieve the fair and
equitable way, perhaps we can do the round-robin of either the continents or
the countries of the applicant - similar to the previously-cancelled
batching process.  This way applications around the world would be
considered in a well distributed way and hence would benefit the world's
internet user more effectively.
 
Best Regards,
 
Teeraphong March Mahatham
VP, Change Program - Project Manager | SCB | T: +66-2-544-7290 |
teeraphong.mahatham at scb.co.th <mailto:%7Cteeraphong.mahatham at scb.co.th> 
 
From: Teeraphong March Mahatham [mailto:teeraphong.mahatham at scb.co.th] 
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 1:21 PM
To: 'newgtld-input'
Subject: RE: ICANN Seeks input on gTLD Batching
 
Dear ICANN,
 
With us, the applicant for .SCB, we prefer to be evaluated and delegated as
soon as possible.  Please see our comments:
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?
o    How can applications be allocated to particular release times in a fair
and equitable way?
1.     Please categorize the applied names and the nature of the business -
similar ones should be considered at the same time.  Branding TLD might be
considered first.
o    Would this approach provide sufficient smoothing of the delegation
rate?
1.     Yes, you can control the rate
o    Provide reasoning for selecting this approach.
1.     Some applicants would be able to use the names early - benefiting the
overall usage of internet users.
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)?
o    How can applications be allocated to a particular timing in contract
execution, pre-delegation testing, or delegation in a fair and equitable
way?
o    Provide reasoning for selecting this approach.
o    Include a statement describing the level of importance that the order
of evaluation and delegation has for your application.
1.     The order of evaluation and delegation is very important to us as we
are very serious in using the applied TLD.  We are the largest market-cap
bank in Thailand and the applied TLD has been considered for various
downstream strategies, processes and, activities for us and for Thai people
& other people in the world.  We hence would request you please proceed the
evaluation as soon as possible.  The Brand TLD (like us, .SCB) should be
easier one for you to evaluate.
2.     We would suggest you can set up some rules to evaluate the delegated
TLD every year - if they break the rules then ICANN has right to negotiate
to take it back.  This way, you can loosen your evaluation period this time
- just quickly evaluate and delegate to applicants.
Best Regards,
Teeraphong March Mahatham
VP, Change Program - Project Manager | SCB | T: +66-2-544-7290 |
teeraphong.mahatham at scb.co.th <mailto:%7Cteeraphong.mahatham at scb.co.th> 
 
From: newgtld-input [mailto:newgtld-input at icann.org] 
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 5:21 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: ICANN Seeks input on gTLD Batching
 
Dear Applicant:
 
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 proceedwith 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:
1.     timing of the release of evaluation results to applicants,
2.     timing of the release of applications into the pre-delegation steps
of contract execution and pre-delegation testing,
3.     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 new <mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> gtld
<mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> - <mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> input
<mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> @ <mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> icann
<mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> . <mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> org
<mailto:new-gtld-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 commentprocess 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 thatwould control
the evaluation, communication and delegation of applications were reported
to be:
1.     The batching solution has to be equitable.
2.      The evaluation results have to be announced at the same time.
3.     Successful applications should proceed to delegation phase without
undue delays.
4.     Delegation to the root must be at a smooth rate and must not exceed
1,000 per year.
5.     The GAC is planning to issue early warnings shortly after the Toronto
ICANN meeting in October 2012.
6.     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 thesediscussions, 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 mayreach 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?
o    How can applications be allocated to particular release times in a fair
and equitable way?
o    Would this approach provide sufficient smoothing of the delegation
rate?
o    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)?
o    How can applications be allocated to a particular timing in contract
execution, pre-delegation testing, or delegation in a fair and equitable
way?
o    Provide reasoning for selecting this approach.
o    Include a statement describing the level of importance that the order
of evaluation and delegation has for your application.
Please write to newgtld <mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> -
<mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> input <mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> @
<mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> icann <mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> .
<mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org> org <mailto:new-gtld-input at icann.org>
 with your input. Comments received by 19 August 2012 (UTC 00:00) will be
considered.
Regards,
New gTLD Team

DISCLAIMER:

       This e-mail is intended solely for the recipient(s) name above.  If you are not the intended recipient, any type of your use is prohibited.  Any information, comment or statement contained in this e-mail, including any attachments (if any) are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Bank.  The Bank shall, therefore, not be liable or responsible for any of such contents, including damages resulting from any virus transmitted by this e-mail.