New gTLDs Evaluation Action Plan & Evaluation Team – 10V2

New gTLDs Evaluation Action Plan & Evaluation Team – 10V2
Sébastien Bachollet New gTLDs Evaluation_Presentation_10V2.ppt

New gTLDs Evaluation Plan
Evaluation team Proposed timeframe Plan to evaluate the new gTLDs By question (criticality 1) Annex Task Force original comments Sponsored UnSponsored Restricted / Chartered .museum .aero .coop .biz .name .pro Unrestricted / UnChartered .info Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Action Plan for Evaluation
Critical questions Specific question Evaluation team Summit Strategies Int’l / Miriam Sapiro Solucom / Michel Briche Finaki / Sebastien Bachollet Timetable Outcome Next actions Methodology Note: Annex to this document contains Task Force original comments Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki
The 12 questions Technical Q01: Has there been any measurable or otherwise determinable effect on the DNS performance, security, and stability with the introduction of the new gTLDs? Q02: Have the new TLD registries incorporated technologies, including new technologies, that can adversely affect the performance of the DNS, violate DNS technical standards, or cause existing applications to fail? Business Q03: How effective have start-up mechanisms been in protecting trademark owners against cybersquatting and other abusive registrations? Q04: How often and how successfully have advance filtering and other mechanisms for enforcement of registration restrictions been used, both in sponsored gTLDs and in restricted unsponsored gTLDs? Q05: To what extent and in what timeframe have the registry operators provided free, realtime access to a fully searchable Whois database? Q06: What effect have the new gTLDs had on the scope and competitiveness of the domain name market, in terms of opening new markets, and in their effectiveness on existing TLDs and registrants? Q07: Are adequate management policies and safeguards in place to ensure protection against accidental or malicious acts that could substantially interfere with continuity of service? Q08: How effective were the different start-up mechanisms employed from both a functional and operational perspective? To what extent did they achieve their objectives or, conversely, cause consumer confusion, delays, legal issues, operational problems, or impediments to smooth implementation? Legal Q09: How well do the [legal] agreements provide a framework for the addition of new gTLDs? Q10: Have the new gTLDs encountered any legal or regulatory problems that were not considered at the outset and, if so, how could they be avoided? Q11: Have there been an unusual number of legal disputes during the startup period and how well have they been addressed? Process Q12: To what extent were the Board's original objectives met through processes that were used for selection, approval, negotiation, and implementation? How could these processes have been streamlined? Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Timeframe starting date months

Proposed timeframe SD: start date
Q1 Q2 Initialization, interviews & analysis Report Q3-8-11 Interviews, data collection & analysis Report Q4 Interviews, data collection & analysis Report Q5 Interviews, data collection & analysis Report Draft Evaluation report issued for TEAC TEAC Comments TEAC Comments Final Evaluation report issued Q6 Interviews, data collection & analysis Report Q7 Interviews, data collection Risk analysis Report Q9-10 Interviews, data collection & analysis Report Q12 General framework Interviews, documentation Process analysis Report TEAC TBD TBD TBD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD Month +1.5 +3 +3.5 +4 +4 +5 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Technical Impact of New TLDs
Q1 Technical Impact of New TLDs

Q1: Technical Impact of New TLDs
Has there been any measurable or otherwise determinable effect on DNS performance, security, and stability with the introduction of the new gTLDs, including any impact on the root server system? Outcome See the proposal (lack of baseline measurements preclude assessment at this time) Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q1 Note We propose not to address this question in this proposal because it would be difficult to separate the effects of adding the seven new TLDs from other factors that could affect DNS performance, particularly at this stage without the benefit of precise baseline measurements prior to the launching of the new TLDs. Further, it would be difficult to conduct controlled experiments in the ongoing DNS environment. Absent compelling indicators that suggest a serious impact on the DNS by the new gTLDs, we suggest that ICANN may wish to postpone consideration of this question. Instead we recommend that ICANN consult with the technical community to determine whether they are aware of any such indications. We further suggest that ICANN may wish to consider establishing an on-going monitoring program that could include regular baseline measurements captured prior to the introduction of new TLDs in the future. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q2 Performance of the DNS

Q2: Performance of the DNS
Have new TLD registries incorporated technologies, including new technologies, that can adversely affect the performance of the DNS, violate DNS technical standards, or cause existing applications to fail? Evaluation team Finaki (Sébastien Bachollet) Timetable Evaluation completed by end of December 2003 Outcome Report on the findings resulting from contacts and interviews Next action Consultation with Jaap Akkerhuis (TEAC and SECSAC member) Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q2 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q2: Performance of the DNS
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Contacts with the technical community including Root-Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Security and Stability Advisory Committee Constituencies (Registrars, ISP…) Interviews 6 gTLDs registries (technical team) Examination of any relevant published research Production of a report covering any actual or potential failures violations of standards views on whether future ICANN requests for proposals for new gTLDs and resulting agreements should contain explicit language that would prohibit certain actions on the part of future new gTLDs Any visible effect on the DNS Tasks Awareness of any actions that have caused or would likely cause existing applications to fail, or that are violations of existing technical standards Report in electronic format on the findings Synthesis of the situation Outcome Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q3 / Q8 / Q11 Q3: Initial Trademark Protection Q8: Start-up mechanisms - functional Q11: Start-up legal Issues

Q3: Initial Trademark Protection Q8: Start-up mechanisms - functional Q11: Start-up legal Issues Questions (see next slide) Evaluation team SSI [with Solucom to provide data sample for Q3 and Q11] Timetable Evaluation completed by end of Dec 03 / Jan 04 Outcome Report on Legal and Functional Aspects of the Start-Up Periods Next action Interviews + data sampling Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q3, Q8, Q11 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q3: Initial Trademark Protection Q8: Start-up mechanisms - functional Q11: Start-up legal Issues Questions to be answered Question 3 How effective have startup mechanisms been in protecting trademark owners against cybersquatting and other abusive registrations? Question 8 – functional perspective How effective were the different start-up mechanisms employed, from a functional perspective? To what extent did they achieve their objectives or, conversely, cause consumer confusion, delays, legal issues, operational problems, or other impediments to smooth implementation? Question 11 Have there been any unusual number of disputes during the startup period and how well have they been addressed? Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q3, Q8, Q11: Legal & functional aspects of the start-up phases
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Research and preparation of surveys Interviews 6 gTLDs on procedures & problems Trademark holders Trade associations (INTA, CCDN, ICC, MEDEF, AIM, MPAA…) WIPO, FTC, DOC… Assessment of Trademark protections Legal issues Consumer confusion Production of a report covering each of the 6 gTLDs Information on start-up procedures used and evidence of problems Specific trademark protections & effectiveness Information and statistics on challenge procedures Information and statistics on ineligible registrants Complaints & disputes Effectiveness of start-up mechanisms Tasks Data collection and analysis of the 6 gTLDs Report in electronic format Characterization of the major start-up issues Report on Legal and Functional Aspects of the Start-Up Periods Outcome Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Restrictions on Registration
Q4 Restrictions on Registration

Q4: Restrictions on Registration
How often and how successfully have advance filtering and other the mechanisms for enforcement of registration restrictions been used, both in sponsored gTLDs and in restricted unsponsored gTLDs? Evaluation team SSI (following Summit’s work on sTLDs) [with Solucom to provide data sample] Timetable Evaluation completed by end of Dec 03 / Jan 04 Outcome Report on Compliance by Restricted, Unsponsored gTLDs with their Registration Requirements Next action Interviews + data sampling Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q4 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q4: Restrictions on Registration
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Interviews with 2 established, restricted unsponsored registry operators (.biz and .name) Interviews with ICANN constituencies Analysis of sampled data for 2 registries “On-its-face” suspicious (1,000 TBC) Detailed examination (200 TBC) Analysis of the collected data and synthesis of the interviews Production of a report covering each of the 2 unsponsored gTLDs Assessment of compliance with registration requirements Tasks Outcome Data collection and analysis of the selected gTLDs Report in electronic format Characterization of registry procedures and results Report on Compliance by Restricted, Unsponsored gTLDs with their Registration Requirements Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q5 WhoIs

Q5: Whois To what extent and in what timeframe have the registry operators provided free, realtime access to a fully searchable Whois database? Evaluation team Solucom Timetable Evaluation completed by end of Dec 03 / Jan 04 Outcome Report on Whois Service Launch Conditions and Whois Service Performance Next action Interviews Take a sample of registrants from each registry Link with previous GNSO WhoIs TF (Marilyn Cade) Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q5 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q5: Whois
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Interviews with 6 gTLDs Time elapsed Frequency of update Enhanced Whois services Costs, if any Setting up the collection mechanism with each gTLD Collecting of information to be analyzed for Whois Access to publicly available information Checking the data validity Preparation (analysis of consistency of Whois requirements across gTLDs) Production of a report for each of the 6 gTLDs Percentage of required fields that are missing Mean of missing data per registration(mandatory / optional distinction) Percentage of false contact information Whois service performance Qualitative and quantitative analysis on the Whois database (quality state and updating frequencies) Synthesis of the Whois launch period, with comparison between due dates & effective dates Tasks Outcome Procedure for data collection within the selected gTLDs Synopsis of the Whois service launch conditions Report in electronic format Outcome of the Whois service performance study Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q6 Competition

Q6: Competition What effect have the new gTLDs had on the scope and competitiveness of the domain name market, in terms of opening new markets, and in their effect on existing TLDs and registrants? Evaluation team SSI [with Solucom to provide data sample] Timetable Evaluation completed by end of Dec 03 / Jan 04 Outcome Report on the Effect of New gTLDs on Competitiveness in the Domain Name Market Next action Interviews Market research Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q6 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q6: Competition
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Interviews with 6 registries selected registrars Market trends & conditions Impact on new gTLDs Impact on Business model Impact on P&L (if available) Analysis if registrants are new to TLDs using new domain name for new or old “productive purpose” (Website, , FTP…) Production of a report on each of the 6 gTLDs covering Nature of new registrations Impact of new gTLDs on scope of market Delta between expected + actual registration Correlation, if any, with deletes Impact on registrars Synthesis of the effect of the new gTLDs on the domain names market Tasks Outcome Procedure for data collection within the 6 gTLDs Report in electronic format Report on the Effect of New gTLDs on Competitiveness in the Domain Name Market Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q7 Continuity of service

Q7: Continuity of Service
Are adequate management policies and safeguards in place to ensure protection against accidental or malicious acts that could substantially interfere with continuity of service? Evaluation team Solucom Timetable Evaluation completed by end of Dec 03 / Jan 04 Outcome Report on the Continuity of Service Procedures and Risk Analysis Next action Interviews with security and technical experts Data sampling Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q7 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q7: Continuity of Service
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Setting up of the collect mechanism with each of the selected gTLDs Documents Interviews Analysis of the collected documents and synthesis of the interviews Production a report for each of the selected gTLDs Identification of applying threats List potential risks Characterization of the major risks Synthetic graphical presentation Technical Organizational Tasks Outcome Procedure for data collection within the selected gTLDs Continuity of service procedures and risk analysis electronic report Characterization and map of the major risks Synthesis of the current situation Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Operational aspects of the start-up phases
Q8 Operational aspects of the start-up phases

Q8 Start-Up – operational perspective
How effective were the different start-up mechanisms implemented, from an operational perspective? To what extent did they meet their objectives or, conversely, cause consumer confusion, delays, legal issues, operational problems, or other impediments to smooth implementation? Evaluation team Solucom Timetable Evaluation completed by end of Dec 03 / Jan 04 Outcome Report on Operational Issues During the Start-Up Periods Next action Interviews and data sampling Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q8 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q8: Start-Up – operational perspective
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Setting up of the collect mechanism with each of the 6 gTLDs Documents Interviews Analysis of the collected documents Synthesis of the interviews Production a report for each of the 6 gTLDs Major findings in terms of organization, procedures, technical aspects, quality of service, reporting… Nature Implementation Timeframe Estimated workload and costs to be borne by ICANN and/or the Registries Technical Procedural Organizational Operational Tasks Procedure for data collection within the 6 gTLDs Report in electronic format Synthesis of the situation Characterization and map of the major start-up issues Outcome Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q9 Legal Framework

Q9: Legal Framework How well do the agreements provide a framework for the addition of future TLDs? Evaluation Team Proposal This question as framed is looking towards the future. We propose to examine, in the present evaluation, the legal agreements to provide an assessment of the extent to which they provide a reasonable framework for implementing the goals and objectives set by the Board for the “Proof of Concept”, as well as ensuring conformance with related ICANN policies and with relevant technical and other standards. Evaluation team SSI Timetable December 2003 / January 2004 Outcome Report on the Reasonableness of the Legal Framework Next action Interviews Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q9 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q9: Legal Framework
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Interviews 7 gTLDs and Sponsoring organizations (legal & executive staffs) ICANN General Counsel, outside counsel and staff Constituencies’ lawyers + other representatives Review of the negotiating history and dynamic of each of the new gTLD agreements Analysis of the provisions of each of the 7 agreements in relation to the desired goals and objectives of the process Production of a report covering each of the 7 gTLDs Analysis of the 7 new agreements assessed against the overall goals of the process assisting in the implementation of existing ICANN policies adherence of the proposals selected by the Board relative uniformity, not withstanding essential differences among the new gTLDs degree of enforceability by and protection for ICANN Analysis of extent to which legal framework provided a reasonable basis for implementing the goals and objectives set by the Board in “Proof of Concept” Tasks Procedure for data collection within the 7 gTLDs Report in electronic format Report on the Reasonableness of the Legal Framework Outcome Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q10 Legal Problems

Q10: Legal Problems Have the new gTLDs encountered any legal or regulatory problems that were not considered at the outset, and, if so, how could they have been avoided? Evaluation team SSI Timetable December 2003 / January 2004 Outcome Report on Legal and Regulatory Issues Arising from the New gTLDs Next action Interviews Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q10 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q10: Legal Problems
Steps Interviews, data collection & analysis Reporting Conclusions Initialization Interviews 6 gTLDs and Sponsoring organizations (legal & executive staffs) ICANN General Counsel, outside counsel and staff (current and former) Constituencies’ lawyers + other representatives Lawyers Docket search of courts Production a report covering each of the 6 gTLDs Analysis of whether the new gTLDs have encountered any legal or regulatory problems whether there were lawsuits filed, or threatened, or other circumstances, that caused major changes in the behavior of the new registries and sponsors Assessment of legal or regulatory problems How they might have been avoided Tasks Data collection on the 6 gTLDs Report in electronic format Report on Legal and Regulatory Issues Arising from the New gTLDs Outcome Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q11 Start-up legal Issues

Q12 Process

Q12: Process To what extent were the Board's original objectives met through the processes that were used for selection, approval, negotiation, and implementation? How could these processes have been streamlined? Evaluation team Solucom Timetable Interviews in Carthage  October 2003 Analysis  Dec 03 / Jan 04 Outcome Report on the extent to which objectives were met by the gTLD Process Next action Gather the original objectives of the Board regarding the new gTLDs Interview Mike Roberts, Louis Touton … Annex 4 Task Force original comments Q12 Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Proposed methodology Q12: Process
Steps Interviews, documentation Analysis Conclusions Initialization Interviews of people involved in the year 2000 TLD selection process Board members (in 2000) DNSO Chairman (in 2000) CEO and General Counsel (in 2000) Approved applicants Analysis of the collected documents and synthesis of the interviews Analysis of the existing processes under a technical, operational and legal perspective Efficiency, clarity, fairness and opening, confidentiality issues, cost, responsiveness of people in charge… Required knowledge of US laws, intellectual property requirements, accreditation requirements… Level of constraints, QoS requirements, commitments on investments… Balance between sponsored and unsponsored gTLDs; between chartered and unchartered gTLDs Accuracy of ICANN’s forecast about the process Analysis of how the ICANN Board onjectives were met by the process at the various stages Tasks Outcome Questionnaire and interviews synthesis SWOT analysis of the bidding, negotiation and implementation phases Report in electronic format Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

New gTLDs Evaluation Plan
Annex Task Force original comments

Q1: Technical Impact of New TLDs
Task Force original comments This is a critical question from a technical perspective. One potential approach would be to take a baseline data set of measurements that were undertaken prior to the introduction of each new domain and then take the same set of measurements at regular intervals thereafter and attempt to correlate changes in the measurement readings with changes in the DNS. The baseline measurements, however, are not practical since all the new gTLDs, with the exception of .pro, have been launched. Nevertheless, perhaps the baseline data could be approximated by extrapolating back from continuing measurements, normalizing for the known rate of growth of domain names. One measurement technique that was used with the original introduction of the DNS into the Internet was that of comparing the total of DNS traffic with all other traffic carried on the Internet. A rapid rise in the proportion of DNS packets or DNS volumes in relation to all other applications that correlates with the introduction of new domains into the DNS root zone would tend to indicate some negative effect. A somewhat different approach is to use a single site, and analyze all DNS packets within the site over a period of some days, and undertake this exercise at regular intervals. Such a detailed packet analysis can reveal issues in the implementation of new DNS gTLD s, as well as a number of other observations on the robustness of the implementation and operation of the DNS. This approach can match queries to responses, allowing the analysis to obtain an overall measure of DNS resolution times, the rate of successful resolution of requests. Flow tracking network monitoring tools have been used in the context of monitoring DNS queries and responses, and such an approach can provide a useful overall metric of the performance of the DNS from the perspective of end application performance. A complementary approach is to measure the behavior of the root servers. The base set of relevant measurements can include packet and volume rates of delivered responses to queries, relative rates of invalid queries as compared to resolvable queries. Related measures regarding availability of the root server platform and availability of the DNS server process are also relevant, as are the CPU and memory load imposed on the root server platform by the DNS server application. The overall objective is to determine is there is a consistent and observable incremental load added to the Root DNS Servers, and if there is a consistent and observable incremental performance penalty imposed on end applications that is attributable to the introduction of additional entries into the root DNS zone. The evaluation team will need to work closely with the Root Servers Operators' Forum and a number of network measurement research groups in order to devise a consistent measurement and analysis framework, and in order to engage the participation of a number of data collection agents. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q2: Performance of the DNS
Task Force original comments The objective here is to understand whether the implementation of new TLDs has been undertaken such that it has a negative effect on the performance of the DNS, or such that it violates technical standards for the DNS or uses the DNS in novel ways such that existing applications fail to operate correctly. It is expected that this question would be the topic of an evaluation rather than the collation of material gathered from the registries themselves. At least an early approximate answer to this question would be important to shape any new requests for proposals for new gTLDs to determine whether it is important to incorporate language into proposals and agreements that would restrict certain kinds of technical implementations. A firmer understanding may need to be obtained before any new gTLD is entered into the root. One part of this exercise is to evaluate if the new registries use DNS zonefile parameters that substantively alter the caching properties of the domain, or require constant zone refreshes – in other words if the TLD zone uses SOA record values that have a potential for affecting cache performance, zone update performance or the frequency of zone updates. The second part of the exercise is to evaluate if the intended use of the TLD requires processes that are not part of the DNS technical standards, and are not available in current applications. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q3: Initial Trademark Protection
Task Force original comments There is likely to be some degree of overlap between Question 3 and 8, particularly with regard to reports of legal questions or complaints received. However, in addition to the information received in answer to Question 8, there is more information that should be pursued with respect to this Question. In particular, data that should be obtained include reports of The percentage of domain names currently registered in each of the new gTLDs that correspond to trademarks for which the registrant was seeking protection (a sampling approach to obtaining data may be required) For each new gTLD, the percentage of the total number of registrants in that gTLD that were awarded a domain name for which they were ineligible under the charter or restrictions of that gTLD For each new gTLD, cases that have been filed under its start-up challenge procedures and the percentage of successful challenges. Further analysis might be made at some point in the future if any of the results of these challenges were subsequently appealed under a national legal system Difficulties faced by trademark owners in using each of the various start-up systems, the nature for these difficulties, and the reasons behind them. Quantitative data on the number of sunrise applications filed in .info and .pro, the number of trademark claim forms purchased in .biz, and the number of defensive registrations in .name. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q4: Restrictions on Registration
Task Force original comments For sponsored gTLDs (.museum, .aero, and .coop), the key data to be obtained (perhaps using sampling techniques) is the percentage of registrations that did not comply with the terms of their charters. This can be done by comparing (on a sampled basis) actual registrations with membership or other lists pertinent to the registry's charters, to the extent this is feasible For unsponsored restricted gTLDs (.biz, .name, .pro), the process is similar, but, except possibly for .pro, membership lists may not be applicable. Again, however, a random sample of registrants could be selected and a review of any websites associated with that sample (while recognizing that domain names are not just used to construct websites) could be reviewed for compliance with the imposed restrictions. In the case of .names, a review of the Whois data could be undertaken (again, by sampling) to determine whether the registered name is indeed authentic (except where allowed otherwise by terms of the agreement) Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q5: Whois Task Force original comments A reasonable assessment could be made based on obtaining the following data (some of which may need to be obtained using sampling techniques) The times that elapsed between the startup of the Whois database compared with the launch dates of the registry service. Frequency of update of the Whois databases. Percentage of required fields that are missing. Percentage of false contact data obtained through random sampling of the database. The degree to which those registries that promised enhanced Whois services (such as Boolean search capabilities) have followed through on their commitments. The costs, if any, for access to the Whois databases. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q6: Competition Task Force original comments This question can best be addressed by comparing with plan the number and character of domain names in each registry classified according to whether they are Entirely new registrants or existing registrants (that is, in some other registry) Have they established websites or are otherwise using the domain names for "productive" purposes [1] . If they are existing registrants that are using the new domain name for productive purposes, is that use for new purposes that add to what the original domain name(s) is (are) used for, or, for example, are the new domain names just being used for complementary purposes such as a website that merely points to the old website. Or is it being used to substitute for the old purpose? [1] The term « productive purpose » appears to be defined by the NTEPPTF as having established a website. Another productive purose would be usage, which might be ascertainted by automated queries. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q7: Continuity of Service
Task Force original comments Policies are needed to protect against major risks ranging from malicious virus-like attacks to damage that can be caused by disgruntled employees to major physical damage. Examples of such management policies should be sought from registries to the extent they are willing to share such examples. Standard policies that are in widespread use in conjunction with standard audits could be used as benchmarks, and registries requested to indicate to what extent they comply with or extend such benchmarks. Since answers to this question depend on information that would not routinely be provided to ICANN, it should be recognized that it may be difficult to obtain meaningful answers to this question except to the extent that registries are voluntarily willing to provide answers. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q8: Start-up mechanisms – functional perspective
Task Force original comments This will be one of the most difficult, although one of the most important, questions to answer objectively. Any second-level domain name can only in the end be awarded to a single registrant. Those who wanted to register the domain names but failed to obtain it are likely to be critical of the outcome. Different start-up mechanisms were employed among the various registry operators making direct comparisons difficult. Nevertheless, one of the purposes of the "proof of concept" was to stimulate different approaches to gain some understanding of what does and what does not work. The issues are particularly taxing to address from a functional perspective. Key data that should be obtained include reports of any Significant potential registrant confusion concerning the nature and manner of any start-up mechanism, that is, of how they were expected to apply, when they were expected to apply or receive decisions, and the nature of the ground rules Actual registrations that did not conform to the stated ground rules Legal disputes that arose regarding the start-up methodologies that resulted in changes to the start-up processes Significant numbers of complaints received by the registries or other ICANN constituent bodies from actual or would-be registrants (as distinct from non-participating observers of the scene). These complaints can be analyzed according to, for example Who is launching the complaint The type of complaint The effect of the complaint The responsiveness of the proper authority in addressing the complaint It may be necessary to approach this issue through sampling a selected number of complaints and analyzing them as case studies Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q8: Start-Up mechanisms – operational perspective
Task Force original comments This will be one of the most difficult, although one of the most important, questions to answer objectively. Any second-level domain name can only in the end be awarded to a single registrant. Those who wanted to register the domain names but failed to obtain it are likely to be critical of the outcome. Different start-up mechanisms were employed among the various registry operators making direct comparisons difficult. Nevertheless, one of the purposes of the "proof of concept" was to stimulate different approaches to gain some understanding of what does and what does not work. From an operational perspective, the issues are somewhat simpler. Key data that should be obtained from the registry operators and elsewhere include reports of any Need to extend start-up deadlines and the reasons behind these extensions; Operational failures during the start-up period; Performance congestion during the start-up period. Unexpected technical challenges faced by the registry operator and by the registrars during the start-up period that required any significant operational changes. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q9: Legal Framework Task Force original comments This question is inherently tied to the introductory statement at the start of this section on Legal questions and comments. More specifically, it is tied to the goals for the agreements stated there and the questions in the paragraph following that statement of goals. […] But there are also three other serious grounds for reexamination. First, although the agreements may have conformed with ICANN policies, those policies may need to be revised. This is a subject, however, that may be outside of the scope of the evaluation, although the opinions of the Evaluation Team would be of interest. These opinions, however, should be firmly grounded on substantive evidence of dysfunction, and not just be subjective opinion. Second, although the agreements may or may not conform with the initial proposals, the specifications for the proposals may have been insufficiently precise, causing some confusion in the minds of the proposers or some arbitrariness on the part of ICANN in evaluating the proposals. Again, the opinions of the Evaluation Team would be of interest, and, again, these opinions should be grounded on solid evidence of serious dysfunction. Third, the two-dimensional framework of (a) sponsored vs unsponsored, and (b) restricted versus unrestricted, may not be the right framework to carry forward. The Evaluation Team should be required to provide convincing argument should that be the case. Are there types of gTLDs for which the existing agreements are not suitable? There is likely to be much that is subjective in the evaluation of these issues. Every effort should be made to minimize such subjectivity.” Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q10: Legal Problems Task Force original comments The key indicator here is whether lawsuits have been launched or threats of lawsuits have been made that caused major changes in behavior on the part of either the gTLD registry operator or of ICANN. An analysis should be made of major changes that each registry was obliged to make, if any, as a result of lawsuits or other legal threats, complaints received, or to comply with regulatory or other unforeseen requirements. A survey of the registries would be useful in this regard to the extent they are willing to share information not obligated by their Agreement with ICANN Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q11: Start-up legal Issues
Task Force original comments Each registry should be asked to provide a count of dispute requests received and acted upon in connection with their different start-up processes and start-up dispute resolution procedures. A report should be provided by the Evaluation Team that analyzes the extent to which these disputes substantially impaired compliance with the stated objectives of the gTLD Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Q12: Process Task Force original comments The Board laid out its overall goals and expectations for the new gTLD program in a resolution passed in July It subsequently selected the seven new gTLDs at its meeting in Marina del Rey. These resolutions embodied the Board's selection philosophy (including the "proof of concept" notion), its selection guidelines, and its anticipated schedule, along with the selections themselves. Clearly certain expectations were not met, particularly the negotiation schedule that was extraordinarily optimistic given that these were essentially the first new gTLDs since the inception of the DNS, and certainly the first to be launched with the expectation of hundreds of thousands if not millions of new registrants right "out of the box". A comparison should be made between the Board's original stated expectations and what actually transpired subsequently. Any differences should be analyzed to determine the reasons for such differences, with a view to understanding how processes can be improved for the future. This task can mostly be accomplished through consultation with ICANN staff and the gTLD registries themselves. Friday, 07 June 2019 New gTLDs Evaluation Plan - Sébastien Bachollet - Finaki

Thank you End

New gTLDs Evaluation Action Plan & Evaluation Team – 10V2

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "New gTLDs Evaluation Action Plan & Evaluation Team – 10V2"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

New gTLDs Evaluation Action Plan & Evaluation Team – 10V2

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "New gTLDs Evaluation Action Plan & Evaluation Team – 10V2"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback