New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Phase Update - Shared screen with speaker view
Who can see your viewing activity?
Good evening from Accra, Ghana.
Greetings from the ICANN Office of the Ombudsman.
Welcome all, thank you for joining.
Welcome all, thank you for joining.
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Phase Update Community Webinar on Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 20:00 UTC.My name is Andrea Glandon, I will be monitoring this chat room and the Q&A pod. In this role, I am the voice for remote participants. Please note that questions or comments will only be read aloud if submitted in English within the Q&A pod. I will read them aloud during the time set by the Moderator of this session. Questions and comments placed in chat will be considered as part of the “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.
Audio streaming in Zoom will be in English. To listen and speak English during the session, simply join via Zoom.To listen and speak a language other than English, please join via the ICANN Adigo Dial-in Number List (https://www.adigo.com/icann) and enter your language ID:French: 9002Spanish: 9003Chinese: 9004Russian: 9005Arabic: 9006Portuguese: 9007Your phone line will be muted. If you wish to take the floor, the operator will unmute your line.You will also need to join the Zoom session to follow the presentation, see the comments or questions in the chat, and use the hand-raise icon to request the floor. Kindly mute your audio in Zoom to avoid any feedback or echo during the session.
Is that another 3 months Staff will take to start the ODP, could you please elaborate why it may take this time beyond th 7 months already used to plan the ODP?
13 months is a long time. Is that the "real" timeframe or is it the "safety" timeframe? In other words, is there is hope of getting it done sooner, keeping in mind the proposed changes from SubPro were not many or sweeping?.
I am confused . Why do we need an IRT and also another IRT called SPRIT recommended by the Sub Pro WG.
@Phil - The SPIRT does not have a role until after the final applicant guidebook is done.
The IRT is formed once the policy is approved by the Board and goes until the release of the final applicant guidebook.
If you would like to ask a question, please place it in the Q&A pod. Only questions in the Q&A pod will be answered.
Hi Phil. Public comment on Sub Pro was to the effect that a mechanism is needed to address issues that arise after the IRT is done and during actual implementation. This happened in the 2012 round and the SPIRT was developed to have a mechanism to address those questions with GNSO Council oversight.
@Phil: I believe SPRIT is meant to be a standing committee performing an ongoing function following the completion of the IRT’s work.
Questions and comments placed in chat will be considered as part of the “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.
re Risks - there will no doubt be heavy analysis/discussion of Registry Voluntary Commitments given the ALAC and GAC comments on same.
Well noted @Anne
Re "Dependencies", Closed Generic policy is implicated.
To explain why Göran mentioned that it could be a $300 million or $400 million project: that is the range of the 2012 round (we receive 1942 applications at $185k = $360 million).
If we would receive a similar number of applications for the next round.
Thanks for answering the GAC question
The lessons learned were essentially captured as the outputs of the Sub Pro WG Final Report.
@Donna - Correct. And for that, SubPro also reviewed the hundreds of pages that ICANN Org did on their lessons learned as well
@Theresa: You didn’t really answer the question. ;-)
@Amr - there is also an ePDP underway on the application of LGR as well as the treatment of variants.
Jeff, yes, there is that work as well.
The only parts SubPro did not include in its work are internal lessons learned by ICANN (eg., to create a custom solution or not, payment systems, selection of vendors, etc.)
@Jeff: Yup. It’s just that my reading of the Outputs on IDNs suggest that they don’t provide the same level of predictability as Outputs on other topics, which is understandable considering the ongoing work on UA and LGRs. I don’t know how long this will all take and how success on them might be measured. My hope is that Org won’t let that ongoing work delay the next round.
Agree Donna - we need to avoid duplicating all the previous work of SubPro
If I do my math correctly, I think we are talking about 2023 before the ICANN Board is in a position to approve the policy.
Comparing this simply on the number of recommendations from 2009 v outputs from SubPro is not an apples to apples equation. The SubPro outputs include implementation guidance that wasn't available when the original new gTLD policy was developed, and those outputs are developed with the benefit of the learnings from 2012.
Well noted @Donna
Agree Donna, the SubPro outputs are fulsome not to create extra work for ICANN but to save it from doing so. The policy recommendations for the previous round were extremely high-level requiring extensive fleshing-out in implementation. that's not the case here
indeed @Susan we worked rather hard to make that the case (we thought)
I am not disagreeing with outstanding items, but I think we can manage things concurrently as opposed to sequentially.
Why not empanel the IRT to work with the ODP team - and run them in parallel as Jeff suggests - it's better than just "consulting with GNSO Council liaison as set out in the Scoping Document. Then condition the approval on outcomes of those parallel processes. Sequential does not make sense.
Notwithstanding concerns about the length of time this latest effort will take, it is important for the Board to identify a 'date certain' for the next application window. This is to allow potential applicants to consider the benefits of, and prepare, an application.
I am not supposed to answer proposals in the chat…but about the above. I would think that the GNSO should have a discussion about that proposal
Thanks @Xavier that is quite clear to me at least :-)
Thanks Xavier . Appreciated .
+1 Donna. Companies need certainty in their planning. That should definitely be one of the "lessons learned" from the last round.
Thank you Cheryl and Phil. Useful question to address here.
Good questions and good discussions!
My hand is up
Thanks to all Staff and Board members! A good call and I appreciate the direct answers to our questions.
@Martin et al: the ODP includes as Martin noted to evaluate risks, including the one Martin mentioned.
Are we not in the 3 month ramp up period now?
I may have misunderstood Lars, but are we in the 3 month ramp up period now?
ok. Great. I misheard
So have a look on the open positions we have..
Thanks for this update I trust regularity in interactions will be a key in the transparency aspects of all this process going forward....
Thank you everyone… stay safe and be kind… see you all soon at ICANN72
When will the ODP workplan be released? I may have missed a comment on this.
That is not me....3 of us have applied for the Liaison position.
I would not assume that will be me. There are 3 very qualified applicants
As the IRP are volunteers, it does not have a financial impact for ICANN, presumably
Good suggestion Anne
IRT I meant :-)
As long as by opening discussion we aren't reopening policy development. That is done.
Sorry Jeff - I made an assumption it would be you - especially given your role with the GAC, which would be most helpful to coordination.
@Justine - I think the work plan was released in this webinar via the slides presented
Thank you all for joining
Thank you all.
Thanks all. Bye.