[Internal-cg] How many proposals? and ccTLDs/gTLDs

Thu Aug 14 11:51:20 UTC 2014

Hi all,

I generally agree that we should discourage multiple submissions but asking communities to work together on shared proposals.  In this light I would note that the ccNSO is working with the GNSO in the development of a cross-community working group to prepare a common position.

However, there are significant differences between ccTLDs and gTLDs and I would agree with Patrik that we should not "[force] the subcategories to be "invisible"."  If we do, people will assume that we do not properly appreciate the complexity of the issues and we will lose credibility in their eyes.

I'd like to throw in an additional dimension, though:  there is a significant number of ccTLDs who are not members of the ccNSO.  Non-members include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Angola, Hungary & Denmark, for example.  Some of these non-ccNSO ccTLDs do not and will not interact with ICANN (because of national sovereignty issues or because they do not accept ICANN as having any policy authority) and we can expect them to want to put in their views.  (The ccNSO has assembled a mailing list to keep these registries informed and the regional ccTLD organisations could also provide a route to engage.)  It would be good to suggest that they work together on this, but we might see individual input.

Best

Martin

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
Sent: 14 August 2014 05:26
To: Alissa Cooper
Cc: ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] How many proposals? and ccTLDs/gTLDs

I have spent quite some time thinking about these issues while working on the description of IANA that SSAC has created that you will see shortly.

In reality the IANA functions include many different things, and not only three or four. That said, one can quite easily divide the things in three (or four) categories although exactly where the border is between them depends who is drawing the lines.

This is a complicating factor that might trigger multiple proposals coming in for the same function, although those reasons I think are easy to resolve.

So, what do I think?

I think I agree with you Alissa that we stay with "three categories", names, numbers and protocol parameters. But as each one of them can be viewed as containing more than one sub category of "things", we MIGHT have to look at each sub category independent from the others. ccTLD/gTLD is just one example.

Because whether there are subcategories or not might even be part of the suggestion itself we get, I even think it is wrong by us forcing the subcategories to be "invisible".

But this also explains why I also agree with Alissa why 20 or 50 different proposals is wrong (ccTLDs in Asian region should not be a different subcategory from ccTLDs in Europe).

Suggestion:

We do request proposals from the three main categories of tasks, names, numbers or protocol parameters. If the proposal and/or area is designed such that the category is to be divided in sub categories (like gTLDs and ccTLDs), that is acceptable although clarifications how the subcategories are related (and not) to each other should be explained.

   Patrik

On 14 aug 2014, at 02:53, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in<mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:

Over in the thread about the communities RFP [1], some of us have been discussing how many proposals the ICG should request and expect. We also discussed this in London.

My feeling is that as far as full community proposals - i.e., documents that contain all five sections of the latest RFP proposal [2], fully completed - we should be open to receiving either 3 proposals (names, numbers, protocol parameters) or 4 proposals (gTLDs, ccTLDs, numbers, protocol parameters). From all the discussions I've had with ccTLD folks, it seems as though both their current arrangements and what they may potentially propose for post-transition arrangements could differ from what gets proposed for gTLDs (although not necessarily in incompatible ways). I think we should be open to this possibility. Of course, we would expect the ccTLD community and the gTLD community to work together to try to align themselves on areas of overlap, in the same way that we expect all of the other communities to do so. And our preference would still be for 3 proposals rather than 4.

Saying that we should be open to accepting 3 or 4 full proposals is *not* the same as saying we should be open to receiving 10 or 20, where any stakeholder can submit a full proposal. I don't think this would be productive, and I don't know what we as the ICG would do with proposals that do not come from the operational communities. Of course, we want individual stakeholders to be able to provide input and feedback, and I think we've done a good job of outlining our expectations as far as how that will work in the charter. But soliciting input is different from soliciting a full proposal for any of the functions - those should come from the operational communities.

This leaves the case Milton has pointed out, where an operational community splits into two or three groups that produce separate proposals for the same function. Again, this is not ideal, and I think we should set the expectation that we want to receive at most 1 proposal from each operational community (with the caveat above about ccTLDs vs. gTLDs). If it turns out that we get two or three proposals for the same function from different factions of the same community, we'll have to deal with that then (I don't know how), but the expectation we should set from the outset is for uniformity within each community.

One way to smooth over the potential faction problem would be to build on one of the requirements we already have in the RFP (Section V), which is for the communities to provide an assessment of the consensus level and a description of areas of contention or disagreement. If a particular community develops a minority faction with a counter-proposal to what the rest of the community proposes, it could be documented there (and we would probably want to elaborate that better in the RFP). But I think this would only work if the counter-proposal could be viewed as a minority opinion, and I'm not sure if that's a plausible scenario for any of the communities.

Thoughts? I mostly want to jump start this discussion among the names folks, as I expect it to be fairly straightforward the protocol parameters community to produce a single proposal, and the same for numbers.

Thanks,
Alissa

[1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2014-August/000869.html
[2] https://www.dropbox.com/s/ztrzblyax0540m5/IANA%20Transition%20RFP%20v07%20%28ALC-MM%29.docx
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140814/b2c04ddc/attachment.html>