[Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Em 17 de jun de 2019, à(s) 18:06:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> escreveu:
> 
> Thanks Jeff.  It’s very helpful to receive this in advance of the session.  Just a few initial observations:
>  
>  
> 1. Costs of Readiness for the Next Round. Para 8.1 reiterates the assumption that the new gTLD program will operate on a cost recovery basis and will be funded from application fees collected.  Para 7.4 says ICANN has insufficient staff to implement new policy and prepare to operate the next application round.  Much of the rest of the document talks about what ICANN must do to “gear up” to run the program and implement policy changes.  However, there is a “chicken and egg” problem because one cannot “gear up” with sufficient staff when no application fees will have been received.  So the topic of funding for “gearing up” will likely come up in the session.  Has anyone identified possible sources to fund the costs associated with “readiness” for the next round?

I believe the current new gTLD pot (not including auctions, just application fees) is getting larger compared to the remaining applications, so the risk needed to be supported is getting smaller. This might allow some parts of the development to move forward, but it would make some parts of the 2012 cost-recovery be delayed until the next application fees come in. 

>  
> 2. Assumption of a Single Application Window to start the next round.  Para 2.6 assumes a “single application window” of one to three months.  I don’t think this assumption is consistent with Sub Pro PDP discussions to date.  Since the document says it is based on the pre-existing Sub Pro PDP work (See Para. 3.1) , it seems odd that the assumption of one single application window for all types of applications is assumed.  As you know, there have been multiple scenarios put forward re successive windows, including, but not limited to the Neustar proposal, as well as discussion about “priority rounds” depending on gTLD “type”.

Although suggested now and then, but none ever get to not receive a good number of objections from WG members... except single application window. So if I were ICANN Org, I would take this is a more likely scenario. It's not written in stone and if any of the alternate proposals reach consensus then we go with it, but it seems rather improbable. 

>  
> 3. Assumption that in Order to be “Ready”, ICANN should assume it needs to “staff up” for ongoing application rounds.   Para 4.1 states that “Operational infrastructure (people, processes, systems) will be established to support subsequent application rounds for the long-term introduction of new gTLDs, not just a single round.”  The WG has debated a number of scenarios in relation to “windows”.  It seems the work in relation to “ongoing applications” has not progressed sufficiently within the WG to support the conclusion that ICANN should gear up staffing and systems to sustain ongoing application rounds.  We discussed this in the policy goals related to “Applications in Rounds”.   
>  
> The concern is that until the Board gives final approval to proceed to the next round after reconciling GNSO Advice with GAC, ALAC, and SSAC advice, staffing up of ICANN org could result in a lot of people without enough work to do.  Thus, it may make sense to determine what readiness activities can be conducted without adding permanent staff. Paragraph 7.6 hints at this via a reference to “temporary resources” but that seems to be the “exception” based on this paper.  In this regard, it would be good for the PDP to talk about which functions can be addressed on a “temporary” or “independent contractor” basis.
>  
> Temporary and independent contractor resources might be the preferred interim step to “readiness” given that policy work and advice to the Board are not complete.  Even “temporary resources” will of course still implicate the question of “funding on a cost-recovery basis.”  I know that the budget contains some funds that are not specifically designated.  I believe Xavier said this number was $5M or so, some of which is already spoken for.    Unfortunately I missed this morning’s call re Operating Budget due to the conflict with Sub Pro but it would be good if additional info could be developed before the ICANN 65 discussion session. 


It was surprising to read ICANN Org advocating for more staff; they are usually more prone to temporary and independent contractors for everything unless there will be a clear continuous need for staff increase. Even Registration Data EPDP, a task with little operational effort from ICANN, is using contractors to be able to handle it. And not only on an interim basis, unless the process comes to something like a continuous application window, I don't see increasing fixed staff as the answer. Perhaps Cyrus will be able to expand on this ? He might have "war-gamed" this out and realised the standard ICANN way wouldn't cut it. 


Rubens




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190617/be858ad5/attachment.html>