[GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] Action item reminder & Question from ICANN Org

Tue Feb 15 13:46:15 UTC 2022

RE: Small team proposed questions – cost/benefits

All,

Questions 1 – 3 in the proposed questions google document all deal with 
costs/benefits of the SSAD: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit. 
Unless I’m missing it, the ODA doesn’t seem to include anything about 
benefits.  It does provide information on costs but nothing on benefits.

This isn’t meant as criticism in any way.  I don’t think the intent of the 
SSAD ODP was to consider benefits.  The scoping document doesn’t include 
anything about benefits: 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssad-non-public-registration-data-odp-scoping-25mar21-en.pdf 
The Board Letter to Council from 18 Feb 
21(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-fouquart-18feb21-en.pdf) 
in response to the previous Council letter to the Board from (22 Jan 21 
(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/fouquart-to-botterman-icann-board-22jan21-en.pdf) 
provide further background on this.

Given that, I’m not sure that questions 1-3 are the right questions 
(especially question 3).  They also don’t seem to map to the excerpts from the 
board letter that are quoted above those questions, so I’m having a hard time 
tracking the assignment.  I’ve heard from others that there are additional 
questions about the cost estimates provided in the ODA.  While questions 1-3 
could be modified to focus on cost estimates, I do note that the previous 
section includes a table for Clarifying questions and one for information / 
issues not covered.

I’m curious other’s thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Marc

From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces at icann.org> On 
Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:16 PM
To: gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] Action item reminder & Question 
from ICANN Org

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

Dear All,

Reminder - Please review the proposed questions in the google doc (see here 
[docs.google.com]) and provide your input on the proposed questions. Feel free 
to suggest either edits or alternative questions that you think will assist 
the small team in getting to the responses to items 1) and 2) above. We would 
like to encourage you to start your review of the ODA, if you have not done so 
yet, and start working on any clarifying questions you may have as that seems 
to be the starting point, regardless of the ultimate form of the questions.

In addition, ICANN org would like to ask the small team input about a separate 
question that you can find hereunder. Please feel free to share your input 
either on the list or off-list and we’ll make sure it gets shared with our 
colleagues that are dealing with the study.

Best regards,

Marika

The potential number of users and the volume of non-public gTLD registration 
data disclosure requests for the proposed SSAD is difficult to measure. 
Through the SSAD ODP project, ICANN org issued two surveys to better 
understand the demand. The results are documented in Appendices 3-5 of the 
published 
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1H-dhhw-EKl50-mT3d9U98zL0XTvBU71eTomOTI-uiToF0eIbiz00AxbBwjZPTvCm1vnMxvVfYT0qrwjKInzwuXqqoN1LJdiUM_aRJEcGFQKfcI5HibKnB7jYk-1BDGw_9EKOniaw-vUD7B72cd4he-CDvTrrvbWdGBDmzurfPJNyeGcOJxP1XwYmM02zoQpnraWXaicSOPNNGPIdfE1CbAQwneD7RqJAwW8akJGNHgmzrNpudb72UGkhfGXDio-S/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2Fssad-oda-25jan22-en.pdf> 
Operational Design Assessment (ODA). The org made some assumptions based on 
the results of surveys and other available data, and it was clear to us that 
further analysis would be helpful for further discussions about the SSAD and 
for understanding how registration data is used more broadly.

ICANN org sought to engage with a market researcher to better understand the 
global demand for an SSAD. The research is aimed to gain more data around 1) 
the expected volume of the requests, 2) the number of SSAD users, and 3) such 
users’ price sensitivity. The ODP Project team contacted 11 reputable firms to 
solicit proposals for this work. Due to the challenging scope of the work, 
some firms turned down the work, while others submitted proposals that would 
not adequately answer the questions posed. Given the need to complete its 
assessment, ICANN org decided to conduct this research outside the scope of 
the ODP, recognizing that there was still value in commissioning this 
research.

ICANN org has identified a firm for this work and is in contract negotiation. 
The firm would first interview geographically diverse professionals from 
relevant industry groups. Based on the interviews, they then would target a 
wider survey of individuals representing those groups and regions to focus on 
the three key areas described above. This work is expected to take no more 
than 2 months to complete once started.

However, the firm will not allow ICANN to disclose its name when the study is 
completed and ready to be published. As an organization committed to 
transparency, ICANN faces a challenging situation as it wants to provide the 
community with the data it needs and wants the community to be assured that 
the data comes from a reputable firm.

We’d like to ask what thoughts the small team studying the ODA may have on 
this matter. Does the group have concerns regarding reviewing data from an 
unknown firm and without the ability to discuss the research with the 
researchers?

From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Marika Konings 
<marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
Date: Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 21:33
To: "gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org> 
" <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org> >
Subject: [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] Proposed next steps & second meeting on 
Wednesday 16 February at 14.00 UTC

Dear All,

In consultation with Sebastien, we would like to propose scheduling a second 
meeting of the small team next Wednesday 16 February at 14.00 UTC. This would 
allow the group some additional time to consider the proposed questions and 
provide your input on whether different questions and / or edits to the 
proposed questions should be considered. As discussed, the assignment of the 
small team is two-fold:

1.	Provide the Council with input on whether the ODA has correctly interpreted 
the intent of the SSAD recommendations and/or whether any aspects has been 
overlooked in the ODA that the Board should factor into its consideration of 
the recommendations;
2.	Provide the Council with input on the concerns identified by the ICANN 
Board (e.g. does the small team concur with these concerns, are there other 
concerns) and possible options for addressing these concerns.

Please review the proposed questions in the google doc in this light (see here 
[docs.google.com]) and provide your input on the proposed questions. Feel free 
to suggest either edits or alternative questions that you think will assist 
the small team in getting to the responses to items 1) and 2) above. We would 
like to encourage you to start your review of the ODA, if you have not done so 
yet, and start working on any clarifying questions you may have as that seems 
to be the starting point, regardless of the ultimate form of the questions.

Please provide your comments / suggestions prior to next week’s meeting so 
that others have an opportunity to review.

Best regards,

Marika

From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces at icann.org 
<mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Marika Konings 
<marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> >
Date: Tuesday, 8 February 2022 at 14:55
To: "gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org> 
" <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org> >
Subject: [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] Proposed Agenda - EPDP Phase 2 Small Team 
meeting on Wednesday 9 February at 14.00 UTC

Dear All,

Thank you for volunteering for the EPDP Phase 2 small team. In preparation for 
the first meeting which is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday 9 February at 
14.00 UTC, please find hereby the proposed agenda:

1.	Welcome & introductions
2.	Review of small team assignment (see here)
3.	Review of questions for input (see 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit 
[docs.google.com])
4.	Discuss proposed timeline:

*	Complete team’s input on questions by 24 February
*	Share any clarifying / follow up questions with ICANN org by 25 February
*	Next meeting of small team to review input on questions – Wednesday 2 March
*	Provide GNSO Council with initial update on small team findings by Friday 4 
March
*	GNSO Council – ICANN Board meeting at ICANN73 (Tuesday 8 March)
*	GNSO Council meeting to consider small team findings & conversation with the 
ICANN Board. GNSO Council to indicate expectations in relation to potential 
further work by small team.

5.	AOB

Best regards,

Marika

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam/attachments/20220215/77c408f5/attachment-0001.html>