[council] FW: GNSO update - New gTLD subsequent rounds

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Sat Aug 30 14:28:22 UTC 2014

Dear All,

Please find below a message from Karen Lentz in relation to the status
update requested by the GNSO Council. Note that a complete report is
expected to be submitted to the GNSO Council by mid-September. Following the
submission of the complete report, we expect that Karen will join one of the
upcoming GNSO Council meetings to answer any questions you may have. Of
course, if you have any questions / comments in the meantime, please share
these with the list and we'll relay these to Karen and her team.

Best regards,


From:  Karen Lentz <karen.lentz at icann.org>
Date:  Friday 29 August 2014 23:46
To:  Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
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
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
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
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 Lentz
Director, Operations & Policy Research
+1 310 301 5836 office
+1 310 895 3637 mobile
karen.lentz at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140830/3759bff7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140830/3759bff7/smime.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list