<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Jim said:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> 2. We all agree that root zone changes are serious business. Looking at
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> the two changes that will need to be done it is important to note that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> only one of them, the first one, is related to the root scaling concerns.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> It is that first change that will add the applied for TLD string to the root<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> zone. The second change is not an addition, it is changing existing<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">> information. We need to separate these points of concern.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Agree they are different. The first is adding the TLD, which is net new entries into the root. The second is a re-delegation which doesn’t change the size of the root, but represents a unit of work for IANA-Verisign, requires review, and
presents opportunity for errors. The RSSAC report mentions a concern about “churn” (the latter type) in addition to net size growth (the former type). Root zone changes are not zero risk.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Timing will get interesting in the 2030(?) round. Some applications (existing Registry using pre-evaluated RSP) could go quite fast because they need little to no 2012-style evaluation. While evaluation was the long pole in 2012, these
collisions and IANA/root scaling limitations may be the long pole in future rounds. Which means there will be additional scrutiny.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<br>
Jeff<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>