Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Vanda Scartezini
33:01
HI JEFF.
Annebeth Lange
33:28
Hello everybody
Vanda Scartezini
34:53
I have just one hour before the ALAC monthly call starts - my apologies for leave early at the top of the hour
Jim Prendergast
35:35
June 4
Michelle DeSmyter
35:47
christopher Wilkinson has his hand up
Maxim Alzoba
36:38
+1 Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
36:40
+1 to discuss .amazon at WT5
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:48
I also will be attemding the ALAC call so will be dropping Audio bridge from here then and just staying in the Zoom audio
julie.hedlund
37:52
Link at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing
Kathy Kleiman & Hans Klein - Princeton
40:48
raised hand on policy issues
Donna Austin, Neustar
42:06
Not sure how we can make anything fair to the 'world', that's a pretty tuff ask.
Rubens Kuhl
42:10
There is no real limit, just numbers that were speculated and those were deemed as safe.
Katrin Ohlmer
42:25
+1 Rubens
Rubens Kuhl
42:34
"Fair to the world" sounds like "World Peace" for me...
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
44:15
I think we are back to the ultimate question of what is in the Global Public Interest. I know I have noted before that tecnically the GNSO is not required to take the Global Public Interest into account. But Kathy's question raises this pretty squarely.
Donna Austin, Neustar
44:38
Isn't fair to the world is captured in the "policy should support competition and consumer choice"?
Rubens Kuhl
44:46
For reference, .br uses the same technology used to serve the root zone, and currently has 4 million delegations.
Steve Chan
45:17
If I recall, and as Jeff mentioned, the primary concern raised by the SSAC and RSSAC is more about rate of change rather than an upper limit.
Steve Chan
46:02
Rate of change to the root zone, to be more specific.
Vanda Scartezini
46:29
totally agree Cathy
Justine Chew
48:21
Haven't we already dealt with the question of staff resources for processing applications?
Maxim Alzoba
48:22
it is scalable , fees are based on recovery basis
Rubens Kuhl
48:22
Backlog at processing, contraction or delegation are questions of prioritisation, not limits. Prioritisation is a different topic in the report.
Kathy Kleiman & Hans Klein - Princeton
48:26
As Christopher W has said - what is the processing capability of the Community?
Maxim Alzoba
48:53
which part of the community?
Kathy Kleiman & Hans Klein - Princeton
49:12
@Maxim, the commenters
Maxim Alzoba
50:27
combining the overall capacity , should be fine
Vivek Goyal - LDotR
50:29
+1 Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:38
indeed we do need to @Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
51:20
it was done the last time
Donna Austin, Neustar
51:23
They outsourced the evaluations to third parties for the 2012 round.
Rubens Kuhl
52:09
Note that the evaluation this time is likely to be lightweight compared to the 2012 round. So even the same number of resources from 2012 would evaluate many more applications per week.
Maxim Alzoba
52:35
Christopher, if they violated policies, they might be reported, if not - what is the violation?
Susan Payne
53:11
I don't think you can say that the vertical integration decision was "abused". There was a decision on this. acting in a manner permitted by that decision is not "abuse" albeit that you may disagree with the decision
Donna Austin, Neustar
53:31
There is an annual cost to a speculative applications--its the ongoing ICANN fees.
Rubens Kuhl
54:05
Fees that are so high that even non-speculative applications are having a hard time reaching profitability.
Jim Prendergast
54:12
And the Vikery Auction would go a long way to make speculative applicants think twice.
Kathy Kleiman & Hans Klein - Princeton
54:40
But Jeff, that's only one of many issues.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
54:48
The only issue in relation to ICANN itself and stating capacity is that organizations that will benefit financially from increased registrations cannot necessarily be assumed to not be interested in the outcome of the policy issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:17
Indeed @Jim
Donna Austin, Neustar
55:23
@Anne, I'm not sure of the point you're making.
PMcGrady
56:04
I'm having a hard time hearing him. Anyone else?
Christa Taylor
56:14
yes Paul
Maxim Alzoba
56:15
muffled sound was it
Rubens Kuhl
56:38
Anne, fair point. But since ICANN is a non-profit, we know that this is not to shareholders advantage.
Rubens Kuhl
58:11
Spectrum is a scarce resource, unlike entries in the root zone.
Susan Payne
58:48
representatives fropm the gAC?
PMcGrady
58:52
I'm concerned about the free speech implications of limiting TLD applications.
Rubens Kuhl
59:12
Paul, both free speech and anti-competitive implications.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
59:28
@Donna - Most business organizations prefer to grow and ICANN has had some trouble maintaining adequate reserves. The more TLD applications they receive, the more cash on hand. So as an organization, it would be natural for ICANN to want more applications. Even a cost recovery basis meant lots of cash on hand and lots of auction proceeds in the last round.
Kathy Kleiman & Hans Klein - Princeton
01:00:25
@Paul, good to see you! If there is no free speech problem with broadcast ownership limits, there won't be any free speech problems with gTLD limits. You can still pick any strings you want.
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:29
@Anne, I think it's fair to say about the recurring fees, but not about application fees and auction proceeds.
Kathy Kleiman & Hans Klein - Princeton
01:01:30
Did Greg just advise a limit to overall applications -- if so, he is echoing Christopher.
Kathy Kleiman & Hans Klein - Princeton
01:01:38
No one is talking about conlflictg of interest.
Susan Payne
01:01:52
@Kathy - Christopher is
Kathy Kleiman & Hans Klein - Princeton
01:01:58
Broadcast caps are always in fairness to future applicants.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:03:34
@Rubens - I support ICANN taking part of the Auction Proceeds in order to build reserves. I think there are a number of people who do support that. In addition, in Auction Proceeds, there is some thought that issues like Universal Acceptance could be addressed with those funds. Some consider that this should be addressed in an ICANN budget and not via Auction Proceeds. In any case, it is quite natural for ICANN to want as many applications as possible and figure out later how to evalute and process and delegate those.
PMcGrady
01:04:08
@Kathy - thanks. Were the FTC limits about actual bandwidth limitations or were they limits for their own sake? Was the FTC ever criticised about how and to whom they assigned the bandwidth? I'm pretty sure that is/was a very controversial topic. Not sure we want to drag ICANN into it, especially when there is another solution which preserves free speech which is to make TLD application fees lower/application fee support higher for arts, humanitarian, and cultural institutions.
Christa Taylor
01:04:18
The applicants who applied for multiple applications are the ones who for the most part did the least amount of speculation. Their applications were for their business purpose(s).
christopher wilkinson
01:04:57
@Paul - I do not see the ‘freedom of speech’ implications.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:05:37
Why should we prohibit a company with 44 brands to apply for all of them as a TLD?
Greg Shatan
01:06:00
What makes 24 “a lot”?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:38
Not sure how we can assess what is or is not 'enough' for any particular or unknown business model. in the future in any fact based way...
Rubens Kuhl
01:06:56
We have 10 fingers in our hands, so anything more than 10 is a lot.
PMcGrady
01:07:26
@Christopher - the free speech issue is at the heart of it. Those who want to restrict application numbers are doing so because they want to ensure that others have the right to run TLDs consisting of the speech terms they wish. Those who do not believe we should have restrictions believe that limiting the speech terms people can use inherently limits speech. The question is which is the best approach.
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:49
in some areas on the planet there are a lot of languages (same string, different IDNs), and two might not be enough
Greg Shatan
01:07:50
The idea that there is any probability that multiple applicants will apply for thousands of TLDs may make ICANN very happy, but it has no basis in prior experience or any reasoned predictions.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:07:53
Applicant Freedom of Speech is one of theGuiding Principles of the new gTLD program. FTC policy was based on limited bandwidth for free television broadcasting. The FTC evaluations are based on the fact that limited bandwidth. The current issue at ICANN is not bandwidth limitations but rather "speed to market". Maybe we shoudl look at not letting multiple applications proceed to market faster than those making individual applications???
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:54
I disagree Jeff.
Vanda Scartezini
01:08:06
i do not believe we can decide how many is enough for some business model.
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:29
we need to base justification of limit at all
PMcGrady
01:08:52
+1 Vanda. We do not want to foreclose business models which have not yet been conceived by the folks on this list.
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:54
there is no consensus in the group about limiting
Susan Payne
01:09:15
what do you mean 24 has been discussed. 24 had been proposed by one group of commenters without any explained basis. we'd love to hear what that is
PMcGrady
01:09:34
@Kathy - a reasonable number is whatever the free market will bear. Anything else is meddling.
Greg Shatan
01:09:55
Susan, it’s a rhetorical tool to say it has been “discussed.”
Rubens Kuhl
01:10:30
So, for the record, 24 has not been discussed.
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:44
it was a loaded question
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:44
@Donna, I think these are fair questions.
PMcGrady
01:10:49
@Donna - maybe, but Round 2 was supposed to be right after Round 1 and yet here we are. Even if we say, again, that the next round should kick off right away, there is no way to ensure that future us will actually do that.
Annebeth Lange
01:11:15
@Donna, this makes a lot of sense and should be considered in this dicussion
Vanda Scartezini
01:11:28
I agree with Grady but when you see several applications from south hemisphere be challenged and lose due the cost of the dispute.. we may need to think about limit, anyway I am not in favor of limits
Rubens Kuhl
01:12:20
I think the report reflects the current consensus of not establishing limits, but establishing requirements that if ICANN Org later finds a way to suggest limits, which criteria it should met.
Susan Payne
01:12:36
agree Rubens
christopher wilkinson
01:12:44
@PMcGrady . I DO wam t to restrict applocatiopnms for the benefit of others in the future, especially for geo-names.
Rubens Kuhl
01:12:45
It doesn't prevent the implementation from establishing limits.
Rubens Kuhl
01:12:54
Provided they meet criteria.
PMcGrady
01:13:18
@Vanda - we may need to think about application incentives/cost breaks, etc. for diversity's sake, but an arbitrary limit is too blunt an instrument.
Susan Payne
01:13:18
@Rubens, plus That also reflectsthe discussion this WG had prior to the initial report
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:14:23
At this point I'm not in favour of assigning an arbitrary limit.
PMcGrady
01:14:33
@Christopher - understood. You are falling on the side of restricting speech for a purpose which you believe is a good one. That is fair enough. I just don't happen to share the same view. But, that is what these calls are for - to try to work differences out.
Rubens Kuhl
01:14:36
One way to deter one type of speculative applications is to reduce the possible gains of private auctions.
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:55
as a GEO tld I do not see a benefit for GEO TLDs to be true in limiting
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:17
@Paul - I've been a telecom attorney for 20 years -- no one is restricting speech.
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:51
Can anyone hear Anne?
Michelle DeSmyter
01:15:52
Anne - I have unmuted your line
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:54
audio
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:56
not me
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:07
still quiet
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:10
silence
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:15
I am also not hearing Anne speaking, just Kathy mentioned she also didn't hear.
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:24
Anne, you may need to press *6
Katrin Ohlmer
01:16:27
+1 Maxim - a city could very well decide to apply for the most common terms the city is known for
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:35
to unmute on your side... sometimes needed
Justine Chew
01:16:44
Speaking personally, I think Global South applications and/or Middle applicants and/or applications which intend to benefit under-served communities are better supported through prioritization, Applicant Support, partnerships, rather than limiting application numbers.
Christa Taylor
01:17:11
+1 Justine
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:20
@Justine, I would add education. These are very important -- in conjunction with reasonable limits.
Vivek Goyal - LDotR
01:17:20
+1 Justine
Katrin Ohlmer
01:17:23
+1 Justine
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:35
How many applications are people/companies considering? It is making me worry...
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:42
24 is a lot!
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:11
I think to make statements on behalf of GEOs it would be beneficial for the clarity to be one or to have support of geoTLDs
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:17
It does have a basis -- and seems reasonable per round.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:18:32
Problems with my line - COMMENT is that a lot of these issues could be solved with establishing priority windows for certain types of applications.
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:40
As Donna noted, it's not a cap in perpetuity... just for one round.
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:00
imagine big company , having presence worldwide , different languages ?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:19:49
+1 Justine .. possibly prioritizing those applicants with only 1 application as well
Greg Shatan
01:20:00
+1 Justine
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:16
Agree with Justine, and to add Vanda's comments about drop out rates because of challenges etc.
Michelle DeSmyter
01:21:17
I am dialing out to her now
PMcGrady
01:21:20
@Kathy - thanks. I guess I have a different memory of the FCC's censorship program than you do. Also, there has been quite a bit of litigation on free speech and censorship. Federal Communications Commission V. Pacifica Foundation comes immediatley to mind.
Rubens Kuhl
01:23:01
Paul, isn't FCC x Pacifica about indecency ?
Greg Shatan
01:23:04
24 is a number. It is neither a lot, a little or a minuscule number without context.
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:26
+1 CW
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:37
is there any particular law we are in danger of breaching ?
Greg Shatan
01:24:43
It’s not just incumbents who are opposed to limits.
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:09
If limits are established, we might hit anti-trust laws.
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:47
and solidify top players position for which reason ?
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:43
yes
Vanda Scartezini
01:27:57
sorry I need to leave this call to open ALAC monthly call . thanks for this very relevant discussion even not totally finished
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:10
frequency spectrum is quite different from DNS , I do not think the comparison is relevant
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:49
last time it was done on priority basis (GEOs, idns )
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:56
interesting
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:29:12
Isn't that GSE?
Justine Chew
01:29:22
@Anne, even an auto-CPE pass? ;)
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:02
Such priority was used in 2012 for IDNs, BTW.
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:34
Not sure it replaces the need for limits, but it helps resolve some other important issues of fairness.
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:36
Have to drop now.
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:49
correction, was done for idns
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:06
1000 a year?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:31:12
In Reality the prioritization had very little effect - many of the prioritized IDNs did not launch as early as they could have.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:15
that's a natural limit right there.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:38
Jeff, could you share the documents modifying this limit? It seems to have been widely discussed at the time.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:31:44
Rate of delegation is quite relevant. Speed to delegation is a huge factor in terms of the competition among the new gTLDs to develop business.
Justine Chew
01:31:46
@Rubens, sure, but I'm thinking beyond IDNs, ie. removing unreasonable hurdles for prioritized applications.
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:50
That limit is also a legend, as it's mentioned in the WT4 part of the initial report.
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:10
It also creates both a natural limit of applications, and a natural timing of rounds. If we want regular rounds, we absolutely have to limit.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:32:29
Order of processing applications by type could cure many of the concerns over limits on the number of applications.
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:02
@Kathy, time spent on some applications was not what we see due to legal/operational reasons, not because of throughout limits
Katrin Ohlmer
01:34:06
@Anne: Processing of applications by different types coudl lead to conflicts between those different applicant types, not sure hwo to solve that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:19
I meant what we saw
PMcGrady
01:36:16
Support in theory, but it would be nice to tighten up the language to make it clear that ICANN doesn't need to change what already works just because incumbent RSP's are already set up to do what is working.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:37:13
@Katrin - If not a conflict/objection question, it becomes an Auction question. So it's a matter of policy how you treat different types of applicants.
Jim Prendergast
01:38:00
@ Paul - we learned at the GDD summitt that multiple registries had multiple problems passng PDT and although we havent had an update in a few years, there have been close to 40 EBERO trigeering incidents in the first few years of the new gTLD program (ICANN decided not to invoke EBERO at the time)
Katrin Ohlmer
01:38:42
@Anne: Currently, we do not have policies in place to deal with handling of applications which are processed in different batches.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:39:14
@Jim - Wow - when do we get the report on EBERO triggering events? That seems pretty significant for policy purposes.
Susan Payne
01:39:33
@Donna - agree that those who are looking for a provider will make a decision about the weight they give to prior experience. I was viewing this only as intending that those without experience could still be approved if they can meet the standards
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:40:24
I don't think this is a Policy Goal, I think it's more of a principle.
Jim Prendergast
01:40:36
@Anne - i believe the last reporting on the EBERO triggering incidents came from Francisco. Maybe @Trang remembers when it was but having some update stats wouldnt hurt for sure.
Steve Chan
01:40:37
@Anne, I believe staff developed, and we provided to this WG, a report on the EBERO triggering events.
Steve Chan
01:40:59
And as Jim said, an update might make sense though.
PMcGrady
01:41:13
@Jeff - I'm happy to explain it by voice if you like.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:41:40
@Paul, what's the source of your statistics?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:42:36
40 EBERO triggered events
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:42:49
@Katrin - Perhaps ICANN org needs to evolve in its ability to adapt to policy recommendations. Why shouldn't ICANN have a special unit dedicated to Community Applicants and a special unit dedicated to .Brand applicants? And a special unit for processing the Category 1 safeguard TLDs? And other special units based on application type? This would be more realistic for the developing market and would do a lot to allay concerns about the number of applications made by one company.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:43:07
Sorry, yes, it was for Jim
sarah l
01:43:14
Due to the number of EBERO triggering incidents that incumbent RSPs are "creating" its not in the interests of security or stability that incumbent RSPs are grandfathered into any new potential RSP program.
Justine Chew
01:43:55
+1 Sarah. Or at least that should be looked at again more closely.
Jim Prendergast
01:44:26
@Donna - trying to track it down but Steve too remembers it. Maybe he has it closer at hand than I do.
Susan Payne
01:45:04
@Sarah - that's interesting, but perhaps it depends on what those Ebero triggering events were and why they didn't, in fact, trigger the Ebero?
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:32
an RSP is a informal definition now (only defined by the internal ICANN documents)
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:10
there are security measures required (it was in AGb)
Susan Payne
01:47:46
more "vulnerable" than some of the current existing ROs with many millions of names Christopher?
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:19
also RO can perform RSP services itself
sarah l
01:49:48
@susan I don't think we can comment on why ICANN chose not to follow a pre-determined path; I think ICANN needs to answer that.
Steve Chan
01:51:58
@Susan, @Sarah, I believe some level of rationale was provided for why EBERO was not triggered, but I don’t want to rely on my memory. I will dig up the information that was prepared by Francisco Arias (I believe), from ICANN Org.
sarah l
01:53:39
@steve thanks very muchy
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:54:03
Thanks Steve - very helpful.
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:27
ok
Christine Willett / ICANN Org
01:55:36
Registry Services Testing
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:56:03
I think it's also for swapping out an RSP
trang.nguyen
01:56:20
https://www.icann.org/resources/registry-system-testing
Jim Prendergast
01:56:40
@Donna - on 30 incidents, I have an email from Steve on September 20, 2017 that references it. I dont have the attachment though. Ill keep digging. "Dear WT Members,You will see in the notes below that there was interest in receiving the data, related to SLA Monitoring and cases where RSPs have reached emergency thresholds, that was sent to the RySG RSP discussion group by Francisco Arias from ICANN technical services. Staff will request that this information be made available to WT1 as well.Best,Steve
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:37
Is there a limit to the number of front-end registries that a back-end registry can host?
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:01
depends on. the particular software platform
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:33
Tx Maxim!
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:42
RSP and RST may be a little confusing :-)
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:53
it could be a single system,could be different instances e.t.c
Justine Chew
01:59:06
more acronyms, yay!
Jim Prendergast
01:59:30
we could use the Sword Algorithim to see how similar RSP and RST are! ;)
Steve Chan
02:00:12
Document shared to Work Track 1 about emergency thresholds.
Justine Chew
02:00:14
but we are doing away with Sword :)
Katrin Ohlmer
02:00:30
Day 1 - Monday?
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:43
the Registries , who performed under the constant SLA monitoring for years should be in the initial pool of RSPs (they have proof being capable to deliver the service , of a higher certainty than RST ... which is a set of tests)
Kathy Kleiman
02:01:13
important discussions today - tx Jeff!
christopher wilkinson
02:01:15
@AOB - Co-leads set up a small WG on IRT, but nothing further has been heard. Where are we on that?
Maxim Alzoba
02:01:24
old
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:01:52
Bye for now then, good doscussion(s) today though Team... THANKS all...
Vivek Goyal - LDotR
02:02:01
Thank you eveyone
Justine Chew
02:02:03
Thanks, all
Maxim Alzoba
02:02:09
bye all