<div dir="ltr">Thanks Jeff - so are you saying that the TRT only makes a "recommendation". Does that mean every string goes to the Board with the TRT recommendation? (I thought you were saying the opposite in the meeting yesterday., i.e. that some strings not deemed high risk would simply proceed without Board review of each string's name collision risk.)<div><br></div><div>Separately, for anyone who may not know, in its meeting on September 10, the Board adopted Sub Pro Recommendation 29.1 with the understanding that it need not be implemented until they have the results of the NCAP work. The link to the Board's Sub Pro "scorecard" appears below. 29.1 shows up in Section B on page 11 of the scorecard.</div><div><br></div><div>scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-action-10sep23-en<br></div><div><br></div><div>Anne</div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Anne Aikman-Scalese</div>GNSO Councilor<div>NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024</div><div><a href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com" target="_blank">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 3:55 PM Jeff Schmidt <<a href="mailto:jschmidt@jasadvisors.com" target="_blank">jschmidt@jasadvisors.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> Does delegation without the sale of second level domains and associated
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> activity at the second level equate to the delegation to the root described
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> in the RRSAC report in 2018 and the Sub Pro Final Report? (I don't think
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> Sub Pro considered the type of delegation that is contemplated by the
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> NCAP study group when it endorsed the Recommendations for Topic 26.)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">It expressly does. These technical analysis work products were concerned with root zone transactions/growth. What is in the zone pointed-to makes no difference.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> In other words, is the "delegation load" and risk the same as that
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> considered by the RRSAC and Sub Pro?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">What is in the sone pointed-to by the root makes no difference. The root doesn’t know the difference between .com and .foo running “Casey’s Thing” (tm)
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Apple Color Emoji"">😊</span><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> </span><span style="font-size:11pt">Separately, do we have consensus on the following which can be
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">> captured at the workshop?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">We do have consensus on the first point, which included an “IANA” proviso.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">We do not yet have consensus on the second point, which I would reframe as “the role of the TRT is to make a “delegate” or “do not delegate” recommendation per string.”<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Jeff<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div id="m_-2296280870442405596m_-1288127675124435680mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Anne ICANN <<a href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com" target="_blank">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 5:07 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Rubens Kuhl <<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br" target="_blank">rubensk@nic.br</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Jeff Schmidt <<a href="mailto:jschmidt@jasadvisors.com" target="_blank">jschmidt@jasadvisors.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org" target="_blank">ncap-discuss@icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org" target="_blank">ncap-discuss@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [NCAP-Discuss] Root Zone Change Rates<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Question for the technical experts: Does delegation without the sale of second level domains and associated activity at the second level equate to the delegation to the root described in the RRSAC report
in 2018 and the Sub Pro Final Report? (I don't think Sub Pro considered the type of delegation that is contemplated by the NCAP study group when it endorsed the Recommendations for Topic 26.)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">In other words, is the "delegation load" and risk the same as that considered by the RRSAC and Sub Pro? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Separately, do we have consensus on the following which can be captured at the workshop?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">(1) Phase 1 risk analysis in the first 14-15 days as described by Casey and propsed by Jeff S in our meeting two weeks ago? TRT to determine next steps based on that initial analysis? Is application layer
relevant for the next step?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">(2) the role of the TRT at some point in the risk assessment process to make determinations as to strings that are not "high risk" and let those applications proceed, while identifying high risk strings and
advising applicants of this determination? Then applicants would have the option to withdraw or submit a mitigation plan for analysis by the TRT? The mitigation plan to be submitted to the Board for decision along with TRT analysis for high risk strings?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">thank you,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Anne <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 7:44 AM Rubens Kuhl via NCAP-Discuss <<a href="mailto:ncap-discuss@icann.org" target="_blank">ncap-discuss@icann.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Em 14 de set. de 2023, à(s) 10:12, Jeff Schmidt <<a href="mailto:jschmidt@jasadvisors.com" target="_blank">jschmidt@jasadvisors.com</a>> escreveu:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thanks! My intention is to have this discussion, so thanks for engaging. Like I said, nothing is impossible, but if we don’t address this (large) implication of our recommendations, I don’t think we have done
our work.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I’m not sure I understand your sheet. Let me simplify:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Current root size: 1589<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">5%: 80<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">So we can add 80 TLDs to the root m/m. Plus or minus. I didn’t address “compounding” but you get the gist.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I normalized to a per week %, which is why there is 1.2% (not 1.25% due to compounding). <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I also only listed the total number of TLDs at that point considering the rate described, so the difference between week 0 and week 1 are 20 TLDs for 2012 guidance, 19 for 5% m/m, 8 to account for double delegation
and some room for ordinary changes to the root zone. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">That ramps up over the years; it reaches 35 a week after 1 year. I added per week columns to all scenarios to ease up the comparison. <br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">1. That’s a lot. We need to check with IANA-Verisign and at least give them a courtesy heads-up and get their thoughts.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Which is I what mentioned… these figures are only looking at the 5% a month root zone change rate. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">2. That’s not a lot. If we have 1200 unique strings to research (same as 2012), that will take 15 months just to delegate to the TRT.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">It will reach 1200 in week 48, so it would be 11 months. But considering the 400/batch ICANN Org mentioned in the ODP, that takes 23 weeks, or 6 months. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">3. This doesn’t address “normal” work to include routine RZCR which IANA-Verisign would still need to complete. That’s additional work on top of all of this.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Which is why I used 0.5% instead of 0.6%. This assumes delegation of new TLDs (either to NTP or to registry) takes up 80% of available capacity keeping 20% pre-reserved for routine changes. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">It’s also to be expected that if routine changes require more root zone change, new TLDs are the ones who get throttled. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">4. This doesn’t address the RZCRs that would re-delegate away from the TRT to the new Registry along the way. That’s additional work on top of all of this.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">This is why is not 1.2% every week, to account for the additional move. But I am being too conservative to slow to 0.5% from the very beginning, when this would only be required by the time strings transition
to delegation. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Rubens<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">_______________________________________________<br>
NCAP-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCAP-Discuss@icann.org" target="_blank">NCAP-Discuss@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncap-discuss</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div>