[SubPro-IRT] Work Plan is way too conservative and we need to do better......
Barkha Manral
barkha.manral12 at gmail.com
Wed May 24 11:13:35 UTC 2023
Hi all,
I read all the above trail emails, I want to also add some points of mine
which might be reflecting the same message shown in the above emails by the
team members.
1) The first point is that the time of the meeting should be google
calendar sync as well so that no conflict related to time will occur. I
wasn't able to attend the meeting IRT 2 because of time conflicts. As
I tried conversion to local time as well but still it showed "Admin will
let you in" and that didn't happen. So, I request the core member to kindly
help with this point..
2) Another point is related to the timeline of completing the modules. Jeff
raised the right points, we can always look for major modules which can
cover the larger portion so that we will be able to deliver the same in
asked or scheduled time period.
3) We can do one thing by dividing the different work modules section, into
different teams, we will be able to handle the tasks on time and in a
perfect manner.
These are the points on an individual level I feel need to work on, rest I
will be positively present in the next meeting for sure.
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:06 PM John Gbadamosi <john at mediarightsagenda.org>
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I apologize for my absence during yesterday's webinar. Due to important
> official commitments, I was unable to attend. I was travelling at the time,
> and the unstable internet connection made it impossible for me to join the
> meeting. I kindly request access to the recorded version of the webinar, as
> I would like to catch up on the discussions that took place.
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_-9115846655634967118_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:43 AM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have not been able to join these meetings yet, but will be
>> participating going forward as the representative of the IPC.
>>
>> In my personal capacity, I thank Jeff for the detailed analysis here and
>> support his comments, and those of Martin, Anne, Sam etc. that we need to
>> significantly accelerate the proposed timeline. The AGB called for a next
>> round about ten years ago. The SubPro group spent about five years on all
>> of this. This IRT group is supposed to implement policy, not revisit and
>> make policy. There is no reason our work should take two years.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Mike
>>
>> [image: Logo]
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>
>> address:
>>
>> 548 Market Street, Box 55819
>>
>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>>
>> email:
>>
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com
>>
>> phone:
>>
>> +1 (415) 738-8087
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:14 PM jeff at jjnsolutions.com <
>> 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:
>>>
>>> 1. Affirmation of the 2007 policy which is already included in the
>>> 2013 Base Registry Agreement as amended....s*o this affirmation
>>> does not require any work*.
>>> 2. Affirmation of the use of "Specifications" - *No additional
>>> work required*
>>> 3. Recommendation that ICANN add a contractual provision stating
>>> that Registry Operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive
>>> practices. - *No IRT work needed*
>>> 4. 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 r*equire 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> John Gbadamosi
> Programme Officer, Digital Rights
> Media Rights Agenda
> Internet of Rights (IoR) Fellow
> Article 19, UK
> +2348099817296
> john at mediarightsagenda.org
> @Samjohn70
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20230524/0b2bb6a1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: njmdxlah.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/attachments/20230524/0b2bb6a1/njmdxlah-0001.png>
More information about the SubPro-IRT
mailing list