Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Heather Forrest
33:18
woo hoo, jetlag! You sound great, Jeff!
Jim Prendergast
33:47
i do - ill type it
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:03
AOB I assume Jim
Jim Prendergast
34:28
for AOB - when will we receive the calendar items for the additional meetings for July and August?
julie.hedlund
34:39
Thursday, 11 July at 0300 UTC
Heather Forrest
34:45
It's always tomorrow where I live, Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:56
Indeed Heather :-)
Jim Prendergast
36:24
That was a very good session - highly recommend listening if you were not able to attend
Jim Prendergast
37:18
There was also talk of doing a webinar on it.
PMcGrady
38:49
@Jeff, RE: the assumptions document from Staff- there was some talk about the Council responding to it. Will this WG also be responding to it?
Alan Greenberg
40:42
Sorry to be late.
PMcGrady
40:43
@Jeff - timelines would affect it too, I suppose, since Staff won't want to ramp up until it has to. Maybe you and Cheryl could just send you thoughts to GNSO Council on whatever jumps out at you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:50
I am unsure that the PDP WG needs to respond but rather the ACSOs may wish to @Paul IM[personal]O at least
Martin Sutton
40:57
@Paul, what did the Council intend to comment on
PMcGrady
41:56
@Martin - I admit I'm fuzzy on the details, but I thought there was some talk of the Council responding. Keith may have suggested that C' and AC's do so instead. I can check.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
42:37
COMMENT: Assumptions re the "dependencies" are not sufficiently summarized in the staff doc. These include GAC and SSAC Advice already of record. We went over some of those in Barcelona in the F2F. In addition, the assumption re a window opening annually does not have sufficient support as far as I know and is significant. COMMENT
Steve Chan
42:43
@Martin, @Paul, I can’t of course speak for the Council, but I believe the Council expects an update from GDD before determining if, and on what, they would respond.
Martin Sutton
43:00
Thx Paul & Steve
PMcGrady
43:15
@Steve- thanks! Very helpful.
PMcGrady
44:01
And thus concludes my tempest in a teapot for this call. :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:12
kinda why they are called "assumptions"
Steve Chan
45:22
Trang is not on this call today :)
Jeff Neuman
45:40
oops :) Wishful thinking
Martin Sutton
46:15
The assumptions will be tested as we progress our work and GDD can adjust these where needed.
Martin Sutton
46:42
The important thing is to have some helpful exchanges and dialogue along the way.
Arasteh
47:26
why ICANN RUSH INTO THE PROCESS, wE ARE STILL WORKING ON THE MATTER
Martin Sutton
48:02
Hardly a rush….and only pre-planning activities have occurred at this stage
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
48:04
QUESTION: @Jeff Did you talk with the GAC Focal Group on Subsequent Procedures? QUESTION
Katrin Ohlmer
48:27
I understood that GDD will amend their assumptions once we advise them and move forward in the process.
Donna Austin, Neustar
48:32
AGree Martin, it's hardly a rush.
Heath Dixon
48:34
On the assumptions that aren't settled, we could encourage them to lay out conditional statements (If it's [assumption], then we will need to [action].
PMcGrady
49:21
@Jeff - agree so long as it doesn't turn out that we are bound by any unchallenged assumptions.
Heather Forrest
51:44
We have to hope that this doesn't equate to taking 6 years to get to a final AGB. That said, I agree with Jeff, it's not rushing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:02
Correct @Jeff no idea what happened then
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
53:10
Thanks Jeff.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:28
nop
Jim Prendergast
54:10
to the GAC Focul Group credit - they already have a preliminary scorecard for advice on Sub Pro. We only saw a glimpse but they are organized early.
Jim Prendergast
55:46
that session is at https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058193
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
57:23
QUESTION: GAC formally advised the Board re need for a formal cost/benefit analysis of the new gTLD Program before launching another round. How has the Board responded to that? Did they delegate to the GNSO? QUESTION
Alan Greenberg
57:48
The assumptions are based on their best guess of where we are going, and they will make adjustments if/when we end up with something different.
Heather Forrest
58:18
@Anne -If we're talking about actual fiscal cost, I find it unlikely that such an analysis would be delegated to the GNSO Council.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
59:05
Ok thanks Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
59:11
Agree with Heather.
Heather Forrest
59:23
If we're talking more about the sort of qualitative analysis that Summit Strategies did for the first round, I would suggest that this group is in the best position to do that (Summit's wasn't useful, imho)
julie.hedlund
59:27
See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR4AI/edit?usp=sharing
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:00:05
Thanks Heather. I just wondered how the Board dealt with that because I expect the GAC Focal Group to repeat that advice.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:36
yep
Martin Sutton
01:04:31
Question: Regarding the delegation rates in the last round, do we know what was the highest number of delegations performed in a single day? That may guide us on whether the annual figure could be changed upwards.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:04:54
And under the ByLaws, it would take 11 Directors to reject the GAC Consensus Advice on conducting a cost-benefit analysis so it would seem that we would want to encourage the Board to figure out a way to deal with that Advice and get through it in a timely fashion.
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:32
Did the wording say that more than 1000 is dangerous? (I do not think so)
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:06:12
I think SSAC said that it's not the overall number but rather the rate of change in addiing names to the root.
Rubens Kuhl
01:06:16
We can do easily do more than a 1000, and that's supported by RSSAC comment.
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:36
What SSAC has to do with the Root Zone?
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:09
Also words like exponential should be supported with some mathematical grounds
Rubens Kuhl
01:07:51
There will be no cost increase whatsoever. What prescribes due care is to not "pedal to the metal" so it can be monitored.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:08:41
I believe the policy goals are sound.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:12:18
5% increase equates app. 80 TLDs/month
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:57
it is less than 1000 per year
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:13:12
Status of Advice to the Board per Board scorecard appears here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/board-advice-status-report-pdf-31may19-en.pdf
Jeff Neuman
01:14:41
@Kathy - The SSAC states specifically that they agree with the RSSAC recommendations
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:12
For Clarity - SSAC has nothing to do with the Root Zone (it is for RSSAC)
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:19
RSSAC is the expert reference regarding the root zone, so even if SSAC disagreed, choosing one wouldn't be hard. But since they are.
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:31
But since they agree...
Jim Prendergast
01:16:23
probably wouldnt hurt to take this portion of the report and run it by SSAC and RSSAC to make sure we're in synch. If were not - better to know now.
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:44
Delegation rate has nothing to do with processing ability, either ICANN Org or community. It's just the bottleneck in the end of the pipeline, unrelated to other bottlenecks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:53
Easy enough to do so @Jim
Steve Chan
01:16:59
SSAC Response: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/4.6.1+Security+and+Stability?preview=/58735967/79433327/sac-100-en.pdf
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:12
Thx @Steve
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:38
If the community can't handle 10k TLDs over 3 years, the community should say so, not rely on other possible bottlenecks.
PMcGrady
01:18:23
@Jeff, to be fair, it is not a completely different subject, just a different basis to be concerned about it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:16
Doesn't deminish the concerns just the bases for it
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:48
That assumption by ICANN org is a flawed one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:52
as Tech or not based
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:05
why should we ask SSAC, when it is for RSSAC?
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:05
No one from SSAC can talk about SSAC, only thru SSAC documents.
PMcGrady
01:20:10
@Rubens - how so?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:21
Maybe we could hear from Rubens and Cheryl who lead wT4 discussions on the topic?
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:26
That there is a delegation limit, when there is none.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:25
We can ask for a clarification text to be created if needs be of course
PMcGrady
01:21:36
@All, also, shouldn't we be asking whether or not there was any harm to anyone in the last round RE: the speed at which the TLDs could be delegated? If no harm, why would we want to try to increase the annual delegation rate? If there was harm, then let's look into 1,000+
Martin Sutton
01:23:35
@Paul, may not be sufficient data to assess as the delegations were spread over years
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:40
Jims habd has been uo for a while @Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:48
hand
Rubens Kuhl
01:23:55
We shouldn't create artificial bottlenecks, just identify the real ones that surely exist.
Martin Sutton
01:23:56
But certainly not aware of any harm specifically related to this
PMcGrady
01:24:13
@Martin- thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:42
As I said back in the chat Hstory, "easy enough to do @Jim"
Martin Sutton
01:24:46
@ Jim +1
Heather Forrest
01:25:01
Jim's suggestion (ask for RSSAC and SSAC confirmation) is far more efficient than some person coming to give an interpretation.
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:11
Note that the only hard limit that was identified back in the days, and only applied to now decades-old software, was a 100k TLD limit total.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:11
Yup
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:14
I have a question, why are we going to ask SSAC , when what we ask is in remit of RSSAC?
Rubens Kuhl
01:26:31
That same test, repeated now, would like go to 1 million TLDs total easily. But on record, the only existing identified limit was 100,000 TLDs total in the root zone.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:27:10
from the ICANN Website - What is the SSAC?The Security and Stability Advisory Committee advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. This includes operational matters (e.g., matters pertaining to the correct and reliable operation of the root name system), administrative matters (e.g., matters pertaining to address allocation and Internet number assignment), and registration matters (e.g., matters pertaining to registry and registrar services such as WHOIS). SSAC engages in ongoing threat assessment and risk analysis of the Internet naming and address allocation services to assess where the principal threats to stability and security lie, and advises the ICANN community accordingly.
julie.hedlund
01:27:39
@All: Could ask SSAC and RSSAC whether the WG’s recommendations are consistent with their advice. Best to keep to a simple question and not asking for new advice (which could take longer to get an answer).
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:54
@Anne, we are talking about the Root Zone, not about security issues
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:57
Indeed @Julie
Jim Prendergast
01:28:00
I think the new information about SSAC surprise about 1000 being lifted is important - hence trying to make sure we have it right. Its worth taking time now to check that and head off any surprises down the road.
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:09
If ICANN is building their system to handle 1000, if the Community can't handle more, why are we agreeing to more?
PMcGrady
01:28:12
Let;s not break the Interwebs, y'all.
Jim Prendergast
01:28:16
lol
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:44
@Kathy, ICANN already handles more than 1000
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:28:49
@Kathy, that's an assumption based on current information, but as I understand it, it is subject to change in the event that our work comes up with something different.
Rubens Kuhl
01:29:19
A new test to determine total root zone size could be done, but even decades ago, one software train was already able to go to 1 million.
Rubens Kuhl
01:29:39
The 100k applied to then applicable software and hardware.
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:25
I think the situation where SSAC members do not agree to SSAC papers is bit confusing
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:38
We already reach out to them, and they told us what they think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:49
INdeed Rubens
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:53
So in my personal capacity, I don't support any changes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:57
in WT4
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:24
we do not have to reach the agreement, we need to try
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:32:24
COMMENT: I would support Julie's suggested approach since the public comment reflects concern - would need to see the language Kathy proposes. Would need to check with IPC re general support. COMMENT
Jim Prendergast
01:32:28
@rubens - ar eyou opposed to sending this doc to RSSAC and SSAC to make sure we have it right?
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:32
There is no dispute between SSAC and RSSAC, according to their own published views.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:33
I support the high level agreements.
Heather Forrest
01:33:31
I thought we were asking RSSAC for confirmation. Not 100% clear to me why we're still on this point.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:33:32
+1 Rubens
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:34
@Jim, I don't support asking the same question again and again. If they have any concerns afterwards, they will surely tell us about it.
Greg Shatan
01:33:35
It would be helpful to have more information on the meeting where SSAC appeared to disagree with their formal advice. Who came from SSAC? Who else attended? Where there slides? What did they say, in their own words, in that meeting?
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:03
Are we going to make the same public comments about the same issue again? (or is it limited to SSAC? then what makes them so special)
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:10
ICANN Operational system based on 1000/year.
Jim Prendergast
01:34:26
@Rubens - I would htink that asking now - why we are working on other issues will save us time if they come back and say we dont have it quite right. But if they say - were on target - no time wasted
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:36
@Kathy, it would be great to have something from ICANN supporting this
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:47
Community comments is on record as opposing unlimited delegations.
Martin Sutton
01:34:59
Suggestion: On bullet 2, would it help if we add “technical” ahead of delegation?
Kurt Pritz
01:35:00
I think ICANN operational system can be and should be scaled to meet demand. It is not a terribly hard problem.
Rubens Kuhl
01:35:13
The SubPro report also doesn't support unlimited delegations.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:19
But not based on Technical limitations effecting stability for example
Martin Sutton
01:35:20
I also support the high-level agreements quoted
Heather Forrest
01:35:21
If we don't have a record of a conversation, I honestly don't see how we can base policy on it here.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:35:38
Raising the delegation limit does not necessarily mean an unlimited delegation rate.
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:15
we are talking about delegation rate - it is different from comments
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:20
rate
Rubens Kuhl
01:36:28
"supports not limiting"
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:36:43
I could support that Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:02
Remove the current cap / limit
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:04
Good
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:05
do we understand that asking the same question again is questioning the expertise of SSAC?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:37:21
I would support a statement that the WG agrees that the important factor is the rate of delegation
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:32
the limit wither has to be based on something (material, not just beliefs )or removed
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:57
Tx Alan!
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:04
It does belong here...
Rubens Kuhl
01:39:07
There is, it is unlikely we should go over 1 million TLDs in the root zone.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:39:30
I thought the table Jeff sighted earlier suggests that graduated increase is workable.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:06
indeed @Donna
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:40:57
Why do we need a number to replace it?
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:13
and the new number has to be discussed with the Community, Operations, etc
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:27
I don't think we do @Donna base it on the rate calculations/recomendations
Alan Greenberg
01:41:38
@Donna, perhaps we do not, but this is NOT the group that can make that decision.
Kurt Pritz
01:41:48
@Alan - we could rely on the RRSAC reliance on (and SSAC support of) a percentage increase.
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:07
There is, but it was 100k based on very old DNS ftware and hardware.
PMcGrady
01:42:18
This feels to me like a solution in search of a problem. I'd really like to know if anyone was terribly upset at being delegated toward the end of the process in the last round.
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:53
Paul, .rio was on record of being upset on that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:12
We should not mix rate of delegation (tech thing, done via IANA/PTI) and rate of application processing
PMcGrady
01:43:27
@Rubens - thanks. Good to know.
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:31
the latter is procedural/operational
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:32
@Paul, not being delegated for Registries is not doing business
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:21
while bleeding money (services, salaries e.t.c.)
Jim Prendergast
01:46:46
thanks
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:46:47
The WG supports the RRSAC and SSAC advice that an overall cap of 1000 annually is not the appropriate measure of stability. Rather, it is the rate of delegation (adding names to the root) and the WG recommends that further work be done on the appropriate rate of delegation from a technical standpoint.
julie.hedlund
01:47:03
Got it Anne
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:21
And we need to reflect operational and community needs as well
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:36
bye all
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:47:37
Thank you.
Tracy Hackshaw
01:47:38
Bye all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:39
Bye