[Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs

Fri Jan 26 15:28:19 UTC 2018

Easy solution:

If only 1k applications will be processed per year – and we want to have the 3rd round after latest 1 year after the 2nd round – then we can’t have more than 1k applications!

To get no more than 1k applications we could simply apply a Holland auction based application fee model that stops to take applications at 1,000:
1st 3 days applications cost US $500k!

2nd 3 days they are US $400k!

That goes on until we have either 1k applications or the desired future application fee (e.g. US $150k).

Obviously only AFTER all applications are in we start to look at contention sets! So applying for .silly at 500k doesn’t trump .silly applied for at 200k!

Then after one year: Rinse and repeat!

Thoughts?

Alexander Schubert

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 4:00 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs

Anne,

One of the issues we have is that there is no policy on this.  There was a declaration by the ICANN Board before the last round that the number of new gTLD delegations be limited to no more than 1000 per calendar year.  That was not a policy decision.

We still have the “Chicken and the egg” problem here.  If there is a limit on the number of delegations per year, that will certainly influence the policies and procedures we set.  On the other hand, the policies and procedures that we set may limit the number of delegations that can happen in any given year.

At this point, I think we need to determine what our policies should be in an ideal world without any limits to the number of delegations that could occur in a given year (assuming that ICANN Org will staff up to meet those requirements).  Once we present those policy recommendations, if we get information from ICANN Org or elsewhere that those recommendations will result in limits, we can address at that point. 

Does everyone agree?

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E:  <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> jeff.neuman at valideus.com or  <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com 

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:32 PM
To: 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs

As I understand it, the basic issue here is the rate of change to the root and not necessarily how many more TLDs can be added in any one year.  (Rate of change to the root could be too high if all 1,000 were added in one month or one quarter.)

The letter seems to indicate that the controlling variable is going to be human resources/processing time for applications rather than root instability on technical grounds, while at the same time pointing out there are lots of uncontrolled variables.

Hard to see how we could base a policy change on this information.

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

 <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com> AAikman at lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:20 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN Org's Input on the Rate of Delegation of gTLDs

Dear WG and WT4 Members,

Attached, please find ICANN Org’s response to the letter received from this PDP WG, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/doria-neuman-to-conrad-atallah-14sep17-en.pdf

This letter has been added to the PDP WG’s Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/x/Xz2AAw) for WT4, as well as here (https://community.icann.org/x/3B5yB) for the PDP WG’s overall receipt of correspondence: 

In addition, this letter will be posted to ICANN Org’s Correspondence page in the future.

Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best,

Steve

Steven Chan

Policy Director, GNSO Support

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org> 

mobile: +1.310.339.4410

office tel: +1.310.301.5800

office fax: +1.310.823.8649

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>  and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers> .

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/

http://gnso.icann.org/en/

  _____  

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180126/3133d996/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6501 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180126/3133d996/image001-0001.png>