[SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better......
jeff at jjnsolutions.com
jeff at jjnsolutions.com
Tue May 23 18:53:08 UTC 2023
Roger,
Thanks for that feedback and I agree that no matter what timeline we
state today, none of them will turn out completely accurate ;)
However, the point of my e-mail was:
1. The timeline should be based on an estimation of actual work
required per Module as opposed to assigning a blanket 3-4 months for all
of them. Some may take a lot less...and yes, in theory, some could take
more.
- As I have demonstrated, Modules 6-8 does not have nearly the
amount of new implementation work, than lets say Module 1 with the
establishment of the SPIRT.
In sum, lets put some real analysis into the Work Plan as opposed to
throwing out random dates and time periods for work without really
looking into the amount of work that needs to be done.
2. Lets be aggressive and try to push ourselves. Establishing too
conservative timelines leads to complacency and procrastination. I
would rather set more aggressive internal goals and miss them by a
little bit, than to set a way too long timeline where we still may miss
it because people procrastinate. Working against aggressive timelines
(which are realistic of course), means that even if we take longer, we
will still likely be in a better position than had we had the way too
long timeline.
Sincerely,
Jeff
------ Original Message ------
>From "Roger D Carney via SubPro-IRT" <subpro-irt at icann.org>
To "subpro-irt at icann.org" <subpro-irt at icann.org>
Date 5/23/2023 2:42:13 PM
Subject Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need
to do better......
>Good Afternoon,
>
>Apologies as well, I have a conflict for today's call, an ICANN-77 Prep
>meeting (hopefully it gets done early).
>
>I do appreciate Jeff's expertise and his thoroughness with this email.
>
>I don't think the proposed timeline or for that matter the actual work
>is the issue here, it is the perception of a timeline and expectation
>of completion that matter. I don't believe that the original proposed
>timeline nor Jeff's timeline will be accurate. Taking into account
>Jeff's expertise I would say our work will get completed somewhere
>between what Jeff has laid out and the original proposed timeline.
>There will be a lot of people wanting to act once as soon as this work
>is complete so providing accurate timelines is important, but being
>transparent on status will be more important, it will be much more
>costly missing a date than coming in early.
>
>With that said, I am generally an optimist and I do like Jeff's
>optimism here, but I would caution on trying to trim the timeline too
>much, especially right out of the gate. I would not want to create an
>"over-promised and under-delivered" experience on something this
>important. I have not observed an IRT actually completing on or ahead
>of schedule, let's all be part of one that does! And I think that means
>being prepared for meetings and doing what's needed in between
>meetings.
>
>
>Thanks
>Roger
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Susan
>Payne <susan.payne at comlaude.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:45 AM
>To:subpro-irt at icann.org <subpro-irt at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need
>to do better......
>
>Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click
>links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad at .
>
>
>I have also given apologies for tonight’s call as I have an unavoidable
>conflict. It would be really helpful, as we go forward with this work,
>if the IRT calls could please have fixed time slot(s) and/or we can
>have calendar invites for the calls at least a couple of weeks in
>advance. This would help those of us who would like to prioritise
>attendance to schedule other calls around these ones.
>
>
>
>I share the concerns raised by Anne, Jeff and Martin on the timeline.
>There is tremendous criticism of ICANN for failure to deliver. I
>really hope we can find ways to increase the efficiency and speed here.
>
>
>
>Susan Payne
>Head of Legal Policy
>Com Laude
>T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
>Ext 255
>
><https://comlaude.com/>
>
>We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel
><https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>
>.
>
>From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Martin
>Sutton
>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:59 PM
>To:Jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>Cc:subpro-irt at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need
>to do better......
>
>
>
>Dear SubPro Team,
>
>
>
>Anne and Jeff raise good points here regarding the draft plan timeline
>being overly long. At our first meeting the points were raised about
>conducting work tracks in parallel to provide a more efficient process
>to cover the IRT workload; this does not appear to be incorporated in
>the draft plan. Together with Jeff’s analysis of the topics and
>overlap, there could be a significant and valuable reduction to the
>proposed timeline.
>
>
>
>I do worry that the whole process since the delivery of the Final
>Report is prone to over-engineering and creates unwanted risks, such as
>losing valuable IRT members if the process extends to 2 years or
>beyond. A shorter, achievable timeline will help retain members and
>create motivation within the IRT to achieve results.
>
>
>
>From ICANN’s perspective, a shorter timeline should also be favourable
>in terms of costs (with the knock on effect of creating earlier
>revenues).
>
>
>
>I hope we can work on improving the draft plans and establish a more
>efficient path to present to the Board at ICANN77.
>
>
>
>Kind regards,
>
>
>
>Martin
>
>
>
>Martin Sutton
>
>Managing Director
>
>Top Dot Ltd, The Business Terrace, King St, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6JQ
>
>+44 (0)7774 556680
>
>martinsutton at topdotconsulting.com
>
>
>
>The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended
>solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or
>privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If
>you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or
>if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately
>alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any
>attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
>notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this
>message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>>On 23 May 2023, at 16:14, jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>><mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear SubPro Team,
>>
>>
>>
>>Background
>>
>>I have been doing a bunch of thinking on the proposed work plan and I
>>really believe we need to push much harder on the timelines being
>>proposed and that we need to be much more aggressive.
>>
>>
>>
>>For those of you that do not know me, I was one of the co-chairs of
>>the SubPro Working Group with Cheryl, so we have been living and
>>breathing all of this for years. But in addition to that, I have
>>participated in every one of ICANN's new gTLD rounds (starting in
>>2000), and have implemented not only hundreds of policies for
>>registries, but I have also personally been involved in the launch of
>>hundreds of TLD registries. From 2011-Jan 2015, I was responsible for
>>the Neustar Registry business that included supporting hundreds of new
>>gTLD applications both as front and back-ends, but also included the
>>launch of most of those TLDs.
>>
>>
>>
>>Specific Comments to Workplan
>>
>>According to the Workplan, it says that Modules 1-3 (as ICANN has
>>designated will take about a year. Then Modules 4-8 are listed as
>>each one taking 3-4 months and operating serially one after the other.
>> And Modules 9 and 10 are not even included in the scheduling (which I
>>am hoping means they will be overlapping).
>>
>>
>>
>>It should be noted, however, that as far as I can tell, Module 1
>>overlaps with practically every other Module and once we get done with
>>Module 1, that constitutes the bulk of the work. For example, the
>>following topics seem to be in Module 1:
>>
>>Predictability - which would include the SPIRT
>>Applicant Freedom of Expression
>>Different TLD Types
>>Conflict of Interest
>>Applications Assessed in Rounds (Overlaps with Module 2)
>>Metrics / Monitoring
>>Dispute Resolution Procedures - Question Why is this not covered in
>>Module 4?
>>Reserved Names - If this refers to the top-level, fine; but second
>>level is more Module 6
>>GAC Consensus Advices / Early Warnings
>>IDNs
>>Auctions / Resolution of Contention Sets
>>Registry/Registrar Standardization / Registrar Non-Discrimination
>>(Should be in Module 6)
>>Comments on Modules 1-5 will come separately.
>>
>>
>>
>>But I wanted to comment on Modules 6-8 and the Workplan. There is no
>>reason why Modules 6, 7 and 8 (contracting, Post-Contracting, and
>>Terms and Conditions should take 3-4 months each (for 9-12 months
>>total). Realistically, there is no reason these 3 modules should
>>take any longer than 2 months combined. That alone would shave off
>>7-10 months off the plan).
>>
>>
>>
>>This is because:
>>
>>
>>
>>a) Module 6 - Contracting: Topics 36-38 of Final Report - I honestly
>>believe this can be done in a couple of weeks
>>
>> 1. Topic 36- The final report contains 2 Affirmations and 2
>>Recommendations, namely:
>>
>> Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the 2013
>>Base Registry Agreement as amended....so this affirmation does not
>>require any work.
>>Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - No additional work
>>required
>>Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating that
>>Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive
>>practices. - No IRT work needed
>>Recommendation that there should be some opportunity to negotiate
>>contracts / exemptions subject to notice and comment in cases where
>>there are unique aspects of strings or operators and provides ability
>>to accommodate changing marketplace. This one will require a little
>>work, but overlaps with TLD Types in Module 1
>> 2. Topic 37: Registrar Non-Discriminating / Registry/Registrar
>>Standardization. This is already in Module 1, but really should only
>>be here.
>>
>>
>>
>>1 recommendation: which states that Registries must use only ICANN
>>accredited Registrars in registering domain names, and may not
>>discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to
>>the Registry Code of Conduct is granted as stated therein,provided,
>>however, that no such exemptions shall be granted without public
>>comment.”
>>
>>
>>
>>This has already been implemented except for one thing.....Only thing
>>added here is that if a Registry seeks an exemption to the Code of
>>Conduct, there should be a comment period before granting the request.
>>
>>
>>
>>3. Topic 38: Registrar Support for new TLDs - This one is just an
>>affirmation which requires no new implementation at all. It just
>>states that registrars can determine which TLDs it wants to offer.
>>
>>
>>
>>Module 7 : Post Contracting - I believe this can be done in 2 weeks
>>at most
>>
>>I assume this relates to Topics 39-41 of the Subpro Final Report
>>
>> a) Registry System Testing 6 Recommendations here which
>>essentially state that the ICANN should develop testing to demonstrate
>>the technical capabilities of the registry which includes testing
>>readiness for DNSSEC. It states that testing must be efficient and
>>need not be done multiple times for the same operator it that operator
>>supports multiple TLDs. Then it calls for the implementation of 2
>>recommendations that were already contained within the ICANN staff's
>>own Program Implementation Review Report in 2016 or so.
>>
>>
>>
>> b) TLD Rollout: This contains 2 affirmations of what was done
>>in 2012. No new implementation work needed .
>>
>>
>>
>>c) Contractual Compliance - consists of an affirmation of the
>>sanctions policy (already in place) and a recommendation for ICANN
>>Compliance to publish more stats on rationale for closing cases
>>(Mostly implemented already).
>>
>>
>>
>>Module 8: Terms and Condition - Only real work is (d) below. My time
>>estimate: 3 weeks at most.
>>
>>
>>
>>4 Recommendations; 3 Implementation Guidance
>>
>>
>>
>>a) ICANN should only reject applications if done so in accordance
>>with Guidebook, Bylaws, laws, etc. This recommendation is being
>>discussed with GNSO/Board, but if accepted this requires a very
>>limited couple of words being changed .
>>
>>
>>
>>b) ICANN should publish specific reason by applications are rejected
>>but should avoid disclosing confidential information. - Requires no
>>new implementation in advance .
>>
>>
>>
>>c) Ts and Cs should only have covenant not to sue if there is an
>>appeals/challenge process. This is still being discussed, but at end
>>of day, if there is no appeals, then implementation is crossing out
>>covenant not to sue. If there is one, implementation is keeping
>>things the way they are. No new work likely.
>>
>>
>>
>>d) Refunds - This one will require some implementation work to define
>>circumstances where refunds will be given due to changes made in the
>>program where such changes materially impact applicants. - Note this
>>is being discussed with Board, but assuming Board approves, then work
>>here is just coming up with a definition of "material impact" and
>>ensuring that is not gamed.
>>
>>
>>
>>e) Name Collisions - if ICANN cannot delegate a TLD because of name
>>collision reasons, then a full refund should be given. No real new
>>implementation work.
>>
>>
>>
>>f) Confidential portions of applications should only be disclosed to
>>those with a need to know...my paraphrasing. But no new
>>implementation work here really because this is standard in all
>>Non-disclosure agreements.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><njmdxlah.png>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>SubPro-IRT mailing list
>>SubPro-IRT at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/subpro-irt
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>>Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
>>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
>intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any
>way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received
>this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the
>body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and
>permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the
>“Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and
>it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any
>attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for
>statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
>the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a
>limited company registered in England and Wales with company number
>10689074 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London,
>WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com
>Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number
>5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London,
>WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and
>Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little
>Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company
>registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered
>office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL
>Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a
>corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal
>office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave,
>Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered
>in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at
>1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP
>S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at
>Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see
>www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20230523/1d1ff2db/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2pesiw4d.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20230523/1d1ff2db/2pesiw4d-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18901 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20230523/1d1ff2db/image001-0001.png>
More information about the SubPro-IRT
mailing list