Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Difference between revisions

Jessica (talk | contribs)
Added html comment for future timeline fixing
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ICANN Working Group
The '''Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures''' ('''New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP''' or '''SubPro PDP''') was a GNSO [[Policy Development Process]] which reviewed the [[New gTLD Program (2012)|2012 New gTLD Program]] and developed policy for future rounds of applications for new gTLDs. The work was conducted by the [[New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group]].
|Organizer=GNSO
|Status=Active
|Issue Areas=New gTLDs
|Type=PDP
|Date Established=January 2016
|Charter=https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2.+WG+Charter
|Workspace=https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Home
}}


In 2012, the [[New gTLD Program|new Generic Top-Level Domains (TLDs) Program]] opened to applicants interested in being part of the unprecedented increase in the number of new [[GTLD|gTLDs]]. During this round, 1930 applications were received and 1239 new gTLDs have been delegated as of March 2021.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics New gTLD Program Statistics], ICANN.org</ref>
The SubPro PDP produced more than 300 affirmations, recommendations, and implementation guidance items. Its Final Report was delivered to the GNSO Council in January 2021 and approved by the Council in February 2021.<ref name="subpro">[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf ICANN GNSO: Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process]</ref> During [[ICANN 76]], the [[ICANN Board]] adopted 98 recommendations contained in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, setting in motion the implementation process for the [[New gTLD Program: Next Round|next round of gTLDs]].<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-board-moves-to-begin-preparations-for-the-next-round-of-new-gtlds-16-03-2023-en ICANN Annoucements: ICANN Board Moves to Begin Preparations for the next round of nTLDs]</ref>


The process leading up to this expansion of the [[Root Zone|DNS Root Zone]] was no easy task. It began back in [[ICANN]]’s infancy. In 1999, ICANN instructed the [[DNSO]] to form a [[Working Group]] (Working Group C) to examine if new generic top-level domains should be introduced. Prior to this, there were only 7 gTLDs and one special TLD ([[.arpa]]), plus a long-list of [[CcTLD|ccTLDs]]. After deliberation, the WG concluded that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root zone, with a preliminary round of 6-10 new TLDs, followed by an evaluation period.<ref>[http://archive.icann.org/en/dnso/wgc-report-21mar00.htm Report (Part 1) of Working Group C], March 21, 2000 (ICANN.org Archive)</ref>  The WG’s findings were accepted and ICANN carried out the first round of introducing new gTLDs in 2000, followed by an evaluation period. This was then followed by another round of gTLD expansion in 2003 and 2004, increasing the number of gTLDs to 22.<ref name="facts">[https://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/factsheet-new-gtld-program-14apr11-en.pdf Fact Sheet - New gTLD Program], April 14, 2011 (PDF)</ref>
== Background ==


In 2005, Following the successful implementation of these two trial expansion rounds, the GNSO developed an Issues Report to determine whether or not to continue introducing new gTLDs and recommended Policy Development Process (PDP). With community input, including the “[[Governmental Advisory Committee|GAC]] Principles Regarding New gTLDs,<ref>[https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-principles-regarding-new-gtlds GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs], March 28, 2007</ref>, the [[Generic Names Supporting Organization|GNSO]] released its Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains in 2007.<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm GNSO Final Report], August 8, 2007</ref> The recommendations in the Final Report were adopted by the ICANN board in 2008. After further policy development work, the Applicant Guidebook ([[AGB]])<ref name="agb">[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb Applicant Guidebook], ICANN.org</ref> and the new gTLD Program<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ New gTLD Program], ICANN.org</ref> were approved by the ICANN Board in 2011.<ref name="facts /> The New gTLD Program launched in January 2012.<ref name="facts" />
The New gTLD Program (2012) was developed through a GNSO [[Policy Development Process]] launched in 2005 and concluded with the "Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains" in 2007.<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm ICANN GNSO: Final Report - Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains]</ref> The ICANN Board adopted the report’s recommendations in 2008 and, after further policy and implementation work, approved the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) and the New gTLD Program in 2011.<ref name="agb">[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb Applicant Guidebook], ICANN.org</ref><ref name="facts">[https://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/factsheet-new-gtld-program-14apr11-en.pdf ICANN: New gTLDs Fact Sheet]</ref> The first application round opened in January 2012 and received 1,930 applications, of which 1,239 new gTLDs had been delegated as of March 2021.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics ICANN New gTLD 2012 Program: Program Statistics]</ref>


ICANN stated the intention to introduce new application rounds of gTLDs on an ongoing basis after the first round.<ref name="agb" /> The AGB explains that the timing of future application rounds would be based on the “experience gained and changes required” after the completion of the first round.<ref name="agb" /> After the application period closed, the GNSO created a Discussion Group (DG) to evaluate the first round of applications and use experiences to identify potential areas for policy development for subsequent rounds.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds], Archived Wiki, ICANN.org</ref> The DG submitted its Final Issue Report in December 2015<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures], December 4, 2015 (PDF)</ref> After review, the GNSO Council initiated the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group in January 2016.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Home New GTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Workspace]</ref>
From the outset, the GNSO policy and the Applicant Guidebook envisaged that there could be additional application opportunities in the future. The Guidebook indicated that the timing and design of future rounds would depend on the "experience gained and changes required" after completion of the first round.<ref name="agb" /> The Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP was launched to review that experience and to determine what, if any, changes to policy were needed before opening further application rounds.<ref name="subpro"></ref>
 
Following review of the Final Issue Report, the GNSO Council initiated the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process in January 2016 and chartered the [[New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group to carry out the work.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Home ICANN Community: New GTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Home]</ref> The Working Group was tasked with determining what, if any, changes to policy were required in light of experience from the 2012 round and in relation to the principles and recommendations adopted pursuant to the GNSO’s 2007 report.<ref name="subpro"></ref>
 
== Origins of the Subsequent Procedures PDP ==
 
After the 2012 application period closed, the GNSO created a Discussion Group (DG) to evaluate the first round of applications and identify areas where further policy development might be needed for subsequent rounds.<ref name="subrounds-dg-deliverables">[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/deliverables-subsequent-procedures-01jun15-en.pdf ICANN GNSO: Deliverables of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Discussion Group]</ref> The DG submitted its Final Issue Report in December 2015.<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures]</ref>


{|align=right
  |__TOC__
  |}
==Foundational Documents==
==Foundational Documents==
The Working Group's Final Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures makes extensive reference to the following documents:<ref name="subpro">[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures], February 2, 2021 (PDF)</ref>
 
The Working Group's Final Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures makes extensive reference to the following documents:<ref name="subpro"></ref>
*[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The GNSO's 2007 Report] on the Introduction of New gTLDs;
*[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm The GNSO's 2007 Report] on the Introduction of New gTLDs;
*The [https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Program Implementation Review Report] (PDF), last revised in January 2016;
*The [https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Program Implementation Review Report] (PDF), last revised in January 2016;
Line 28: Line 25:
*ICANN's [https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements Registry Agreement]
*ICANN's [https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements Registry Agreement]


==Deference to other ACs, SOs, and PDPs==
==Final Report and Recommendations==
The scope of the Working Group was substantial and had the potential to cross into territory being separately investigated by other PDP working groups. For example, the SubPro Working Group declined to engage with intellectual property issues, to avoid duplication of effort with the [[PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs|Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs]].<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490775 Work Track 2 - Scope], SubPro Workspace</ref> The Working Group also identified possible overlaps in scope with the [[CCWG-IG|Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability]] and endeavored to ensure that they were not overstepping their charter in such areas.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779 Work Track 3 - Scope], SubPro Workspace</ref> The Working Group also deferred to the decision making of the [[Universal Acceptance Steering Group]] on the topic of [[Internationalized Domain Name|internationalized domain names]].<ref>[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490781 Work Track 4 - Scope], SubPro Workspace</ref>
The Working Group's Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021.<ref>[https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Read-the-SubPro-PDP-Newsletter---January-2021-Edition.html?soid=1122025845763&aid=qJxZ65sQtok SubPro Newsletter], January 2021.</ref> The Council approved the Final Report and submitted its "Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration" to the ICANN Board on February 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" />  


== Working Group Tracks and Output ==
===Central Recommendations and Themes===
The WG for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP was tasked with determining what, if any, changes to policy were required from those adopted pursuant to the GNSO’s 2007 report and recommendations. The Final Issue report identified a broad range of topics and issues for discussion. Initially, four work tracks (WTs) were established to divide the issues into subject areas. In 2018, a fifth work track was initiated to examine the issue of geographic names at the top level.


* WT1 - Overall Process, Support, and Outreach
====Predictability Framework and SPIRT====
* WT2 - Legal/Regulatory/Contractual Obligations
* WT3 - String Contention/Objections and Disputes
* WT4 - Internationalized Domain Names, Technical/Operational Issues
* WT5 - Geographic Names at the Top Level
 
===WT1: Overall Process, Support & Outreach===
Work Track 1 focused on applicant support, outreach, and process concerns. Key topics included applicant support, clarity of application process, application fees, and equity issues.
 
===WT2: Legal, Regulatory, & Contractual Obligations===
Work Track 2 focused on reserved names, the base [[Registry Agreement|registry agreement]], a refined policy for implementation of registrant safeguards, and conceptualizing how the global public interest might be represented, defended, or addressed in policy-making around new gTLDs.


===WT3: String Contention, Objections, & Disputes===
The report emphasizes the need for consistent, predictable outcomes for application and dispute procedures. The Working Group recommended the adoption of a Predictability Framework (contained in Annex E of the Final Report), as well as the creation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT, pronounced "spirit") to monitor, assess, and propose resolutions to situations that might impact the operation of the New gTLD Program.<ref name="subpro" /> 
Work Track 3 focused on a review of the processes and engagement with string contention and objections to applications. It also addressed issues related to [[Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure|PICDRP]] and [[Registration Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure|RRDRP]], the two established dispute resolution procedures from the New gTLD Program that do not involve intellectual property.


===WT4: [[Internationalized Domain Name|Internationalized Domain Names]], Technical & Operational Issues===
The Predictability Framework identifies a limited number of such situations, including changes in ICANN's operations, changes to policies related to or affecting the New gTLD Program, and new policy proposals that may affect the program. Under the guidance, emergency decisions that may impact the program should be "narrowly tailored to address the emergency situation."<ref name="subpro" /> The Working Group recommended the maintenance of a change log, so that the GNSO and applicants may be kept apprised of changes to the program. In addition, the WG proposed an amendment to the refund procedure so that applicants who are adversely affected by policy changes may withdraw and receive a refund of fees.
Work Track 4 addressed internationalized domain names and engaged in a review of applicant requirements related to technical, financial, and operational concerns.
 
===WT5: Geographic Names at the Top Level===
WT5 utilized a shared leadership model, with co-leaders from ALAC, GAC, ccNSO, and GNSO. The subject of geographic names was a topic of much discussion at [[ICANN 59]], with two cross-community sessions. The Working Group submitted this work track's final report as an annex to their final report, without amendment.<ref name="subpro" /> Although the Work Track examined a variety of issues related to inconsistencies between the AGB and the GNSO's 2007 Report guidance, it was unable to reach consensus on any changes to the policies outlined in the Applicant Guidebook. The Final Report of the Work Track concluded in part:
<blockquote>After extensive discussion, the Work Track was unable to agree to recommendations that depart from the 2012 implementation, which it has considered the baseline throughout deliberations. Therefore, it recommends updating the GNSO policy to be consistent with the 2012 Applicant Guidebook and largely maintaining the Applicant Guidebook provisions for subsequent procedures. This brings GNSO policy in line with implementation, which the Work Track considers a significant achievement given the diversity of perspectives on this issue and the challenges in finding a compromise acceptable to all parties.<ref>For more detail on Work Track 5's process, refer to [https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+5%3A+Geographic+Names+at+the+Top-Level Work Track 5] in the PDP workspace</ref></blockquote>
 
==Final Report and Recommendations==
The Working Group's Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021.<ref>[https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Read-the-SubPro-PDP-Newsletter---January-2021-Edition.html?soid=1122025845763&aid=qJxZ65sQtok SubPro Newsletter], January 2021.</ref> The Council approved the Final Report and submitted its "Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration" to the ICANN Board on February 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" />
===Central Recommendations and Themes===
====Predictability Framework and SPIRT====
The report emphasizes the need for consistent, predictable outcomes for application and dispute procedures. The Working Group recommended the adoption of a Predictability Framework (contained in Annex E of the Final Report), as well as the creation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT, pronounced "spirit") to monitor, assess, and propose resolutions to situations that might impact the operation of the New gTLD Program.<ref name="subpro" /> The Predictability Framework identifies a limited number of such situations, including changes in ICANN's operations, changes to policies related to or affecting the New gTLD Program, and new policy proposals that may affect the program. Under the guidance, emergency decisions that may impact the program should be "narrowly tailored to address the emergency situation."<ref name="subpro" /> The Working Group recommended the maintenance of a change log, so that the GNSO and applicants may be kept apprised of changes to the program. In addition, the WG proposed an amendment to the refund procedure so that applicants who are adversely affected by policy changes may withdraw and receive a refund of fees.
In its rationale for these proposals, the WG noted:  
In its rationale for these proposals, the WG noted:  
<blockquote>Applicants and other parties interested in the New gTLD Program, however, believed that there were a number of changes that were made after the commencement of the 2012 program which hindered the program’s predictability. Therefore, the Working Charter asked the Working Group to consider the question, “How can changes to the program be introduced after launch (e.g., digital archery/prioritization issues, name collision, registry agreement changes, public interest commitments (PICs), etc.) be avoided?” In addition, the ICANN Board commented that “The Board is concerned about unanticipated issues that might arise and what mechanism should be used in such cases.”<br />
<blockquote>Applicants and other parties interested in the New gTLD Program, however, believed that there were a number of changes that were made after the commencement of the 2012 program which hindered the program’s predictability. Therefore, the Working Charter asked the Working Group to consider the question, “How can changes to the program be introduced after launch (e.g., digital archery/prioritization issues, name collision, registry agreement changes, public interest commitments (PICs), etc.) be avoided?” In addition, the ICANN Board commented that “The Board is concerned about unanticipated issues that might arise and what mechanism should be used in such cases.”<br />
Line 268: Line 243:
==Board Actions ==
==Board Actions ==
* The board placed the final report on the agenda for its regular meeting on June 21, 2021.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2021-06-21-en ICANN.org Archive - Board Material: Agenda], June 21, 2021</ref> At [[ICANN 71]], when conversation touched upon SUBPRO, there was a general expectation that the board would launch an [[Operational Design Phase]] regarding the recommendations in the Final Outputs document.<ref>[https://71.schedule.icann.org/meetings/s6yQ7pydosLKtJFDM# ICANN 71 Session - GAC Discussion on Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs, Future GAC Meetings], June 15, 2021</ref><ref>[https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/content=t:attachment,f:%22I71_RTM-Tue15June2021__GAC%20Disc%20on%20Subsequent%20Rounds%20of%20New%20gTLDs%20(1%20of%202)-en.pdf ICANN 71 Transcript - GAC Discussion of Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs], June 15, 2021</ref>
* The board placed the final report on the agenda for its regular meeting on June 21, 2021.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2021-06-21-en ICANN.org Archive - Board Material: Agenda], June 21, 2021</ref> At [[ICANN 71]], when conversation touched upon SUBPRO, there was a general expectation that the board would launch an [[Operational Design Phase]] regarding the recommendations in the Final Outputs document.<ref>[https://71.schedule.icann.org/meetings/s6yQ7pydosLKtJFDM# ICANN 71 Session - GAC Discussion on Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs, Future GAC Meetings], June 15, 2021</ref><ref>[https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/content=t:attachment,f:%22I71_RTM-Tue15June2021__GAC%20Disc%20on%20Subsequent%20Rounds%20of%20New%20gTLDs%20(1%20of%202)-en.pdf ICANN 71 Transcript - GAC Discussion of Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs], June 15, 2021</ref>
* On September 12, 2021, the Board directed the [[ICANN CEO]] to organize the resources required to begin work on the [[ODP]] for SubPro and advise the Board when the work of the ODP begins. The Board requested regular updates on the progress and the delivery of an Operational Design Assessment (ODA) (the output of the ODP), within '''ten months''' of the date of initiation. The Board also authorized Goran Marby up to US$9 million to fund the ODP, and its requisite community engagement, formation and delivery of an ODA to the Board, and any additional work required to support the ICANN Board's consideration of the SubPro final report.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-odp-webinar-28sep21-en.pdf SubPro Webinar, ICANN Sept 2021]</ref>
* On September 12, 2021, the Board directed the [[ICANN CEO]] to organize the resources required to begin work on the [[ODP]] for SubPro and advise the Board when the work of the ODP begins. The Board requested regular updates on the progress and the delivery of an Operational Design Assessment (ODA) (the output of the ODP), within ten months of the date of initiation. The Board also authorized [[Göran Marby|Goran Marby]] up to US$9 million to fund the ODP, and its requisite community engagement, formation and delivery of an ODA to the Board, and any additional work required to support the ICANN Board's consideration of the SubPro final report.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-odp-webinar-28sep21-en.pdf SubPro Webinar, ICANN Sept 2021]</ref>


==Operational Design Phase==
==Operational Design Phase==
On December 12, 2022, [[ICANN Organization]] delivered the Operational Design Assessment (ODA), which is the final product of the Operational Design Phase ([[ODP]]) to the ICANN Board, ending a phase that began on 12 September 2021, when the Board directed the [[ICANN CEO]] to organize the resources required to begin this process.<ref name="odpdash">[https://www.icann.org/subpro-odp ICANN.org - SUBPRO ODP]</ref>
On December 12, 2022, [[ICANN Organization]] delivered the "Operational Design Assessment (ODA)", which is the final product of the Operational Design Phase ([[ODP]]) to the ICANN Board, ending a phase that began on September 12, 2021, when the Board directed the [[ICANN CEO]] to organize the resources required to begin this process.<ref name="odpdash">[https://www.icann.org/subpro-odp ICANN.org - SUBPRO ODP]</ref>


===Foundational Documents and Resources===
===Foundational Documents and Resources===
Line 277: Line 252:
*[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-odp/ SUBPRO ODP Listserv]
*[https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-odp/ SUBPRO ODP Listserv]
*[https://www.icann.org/subpro-odp SUBPRO ODP Dashboard]
*[https://www.icann.org/subpro-odp SUBPRO ODP Dashboard]
 
<!--===Project Timeline===
===Project Timeline===
In February, the ODP team published their anticipated timeline for the project:<ref name="odpdash" />
In February, the ODP team published their anticipated timeline for the project:<ref name="odpdash" />


<timeline>
<timeline>
# All measures are in pixels
ImageSize  = width:1200 height:auto barincrement:25
ImageSize  = width:1200 height:auto barincrement:25
PlotArea  = left:20 right:20 bottom:20 top:20
PlotArea  = left:20 right:20 bottom:20 top:20
Line 293: Line 265:
ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:1 start:01/01/2022
ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:1 start:01/01/2022
ScaleMinor = unit:month increment:1 start:01/01/2022
ScaleMinor = unit:month increment:1 start:01/01/2022
Colors =
  id:grid value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)


BarData=
BarData =
    Barset:Phases
  barset:Phases


PlotData=
PlotData =
  align:left textcolor:black fontsize:M mark:(line,black) width:15
  align:left textcolor:black fontsize:M
  barset:Phases color:yellowgreen
  barset:Phases
      at:01/03/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Jan. 3 - ODP Launched"
    at:01/03/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Jan. 3 - ODP launched"
      at:02/22/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Feb. 22 - Begin Drafting ODA"
    at:02/22/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Feb. 22 - Begin drafting ODA"
      at:03/07/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:[https://73.schedule.icann.org/meetings/GzLD4X2x8wqi5B4dp|March 7 - ICANN 73 Presentation on Updated Assumptions]
    at:03/07/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"[https://73.schedule.icann.org/meetings/GzLD4X2x8wqi5B4dp|Mar. 7 - ICANN 73 presentation on updated assumptions]"
      at:03/21/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"March 21 - Team Debrief and Refine Assumptions"
    at:03/21/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Mar. 21 - Team debrief and refine assumptions"
      at:03/28/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"March 28 - Community Status Update #1"
    at:03/28/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Mar. 28 - Community status update #1"
      at:05/02/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"May 2 - ODP Project Team Workshop"
    at:05/02/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"May 2 - ODP project team workshop"
      at:05/16/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"May 16 - Community Status Update #2 (Halfway Point)"
    at:05/16/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"May 16 - Community status update #2 (halfway point)"
      at:05/23/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"May 23 - Work Track Project Teams Begin to Finalize Analyses"
    at:05/23/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"May 23 - Work track project teams begin to finalize analyses"
      at:06/13/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:[https://74.schedule.icann.org/|June 13-17 - ICANN 74]
    at:06/13/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"[https://74.schedule.icann.org/|Jun. 13-17 - ICANN 74]"
      at:06/27/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"June 27 - Work Track Analysis Wrap-up"
    at:06/27/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Jun. 27 - Work track analysis wrap-up"
      at:08/15/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Aug. 15 - Community Status Update #3"
    at:08/15/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Aug. 15 - Community status update #3"
      at:09/12/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Sept. 12 - Final Draft of ODA complete - public comments"
    at:09/12/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Sept. 12 - Final draft of ODA complete (public comments)"
      at:09/19/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Sept. 19 - Present ODA at ICANN 75"
    at:09/19/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Sept. 19 - Present ODA at ICANN 75"
      at:10/31/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Dec. 12 - Submit ODA to Board"
    at:12/12/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Dec. 12 - Submit ODA to Board"
     
</timeline>-->
</timeline>
===Process and Developments===
===Process and Developments===
In the wake of [[ICANN 72]], ICANN org responded to questions and comments that arose during the meeting sessions and in the "hallways."<ref name="odpfaqpost">[https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/update-answers-to-questions-related-to-icanns-upcoming-subsequent-procedures-odp-1-12-2021-en ICANN.org Blog - Answers to Questions Related to ICANN's Upcoming SUBPRO ODP], December 1, 2021</ref> [[Karen Lentz]] responded to some of the questions and issues raised and addressed the community's interest in the rapid implementation of SubPro and the next new gTLD round. Lentz stated that the ODP would streamline the process and shorten the overall time to launch a new application round. She also noted that the SubPro work was intended to establish a solid, enduring foundation from which multiple application rounds can be launched.<ref name="odpfaqpost" />  
In the wake of [[ICANN 72]], ICANN org responded to questions and comments that arose during the meeting sessions and in the "hallways."<ref name="odpfaqpost">[https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/update-answers-to-questions-related-to-icanns-upcoming-subsequent-procedures-odp-1-12-2021-en ICANN.org Blog - Answers to Questions Related to ICANN's Upcoming SUBPRO ODP], December 1, 2021</ref> [[Karen Lentz]] responded to some of the questions and issues raised and addressed the community's interest in the rapid implementation of SubPro and the next new gTLD round. Lentz stated that the ODP would streamline the process and shorten the overall time to launch a new application round. She also noted that the SubPro work was intended to establish a solid, enduring foundation from which multiple application rounds can be launched.<ref name="odpfaqpost" />  
Line 348: Line 317:
During the meeting, the ODP team hosted a session to engage stakeholders and receive feedback on specific work areas in progress.<ref name="74odp">[https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/Q5k7NyhhFhLwmbkgY ICANN 74 Archive - Plenary Session: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - Working Together], May 13, 2022</ref>
During the meeting, the ODP team hosted a session to engage stakeholders and receive feedback on specific work areas in progress.<ref name="74odp">[https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/Q5k7NyhhFhLwmbkgY ICANN 74 Archive - Plenary Session: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - Working Together], May 13, 2022</ref>


==ODA==
ICANN spent $6.8 million on the ODP to generate and deliver the Operational Design Assessment in mid-December 2022. This amount fell under the low-end of the $7 million to $9 million the ICANN board approved for its budget. Fifteen full-time equivalents, mostly [[:Category:ICANN staff|ICANN Staff]], spent over 27,000 hours in making the ODA report.<ref>[https://domainincite.com/28594-new-gtlds-report-came-in-under-budget nTLD ODA Report Under Budget, Domain Incite]</ref>
===Key Take-Aways from the ODA ===
===Key Take-Aways from the ODA ===
ICANN Org
ICANN Org
Line 366: Line 337:
::#giving an advantage to applicants already engaged in the current DNS ecosystem, and
::#giving an advantage to applicants already engaged in the current DNS ecosystem, and
::#being less efficient than the processing of portfolio applications available with option 1.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf SubPro ODA, Executive Summary], Pg 17</ref>
::#being less efficient than the processing of portfolio applications available with option 1.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf SubPro ODA, Executive Summary], Pg 17</ref>
===Reactions to the ODA===
On January 20, 2023, the GNSO Council provided feedback to the ICANN Board about the SubPro ODA. The Council encouraged the ICANN Board to adopt the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report ASAP. In particular, the Small Team:
*explained that it couldn't differentiate Options 1 and 2 and their impacts on the overall new gTLD program;
*believed that the bulk of the applications would come in the first cycle, regardless of what ICANN org internally designs;
*suggested that the next round should not be more complex or time and resource intensive than is necessary;
*requested that the org use existing know-how and lessons learned (and the general approach of outsourcing or buying in and adapting systems);
*distinguished between what is necessary to support the program and what is a wish list; and
*felt that the design could be simplified to minimize the risks identified by using customizable existing software and platforms instead of building in-house and from scratch.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ducos-to-sinha-20jan23-en.pdf Ducos to Sinha Jan 20, 2023, Correspondence, ICANN Files]</ref>
==Implementation Planning Phase==
At [[ICANN 76]], the [[GNSO Council]] agreed to form a small team of councilors to review the pending recommendations and suggest how to address the underlying concerns. The Council SubPro Small Team completed an initial run-through of the issues chart and proposed paths forward for each pending recommendation to be presented in the Council's dialogue with the ICANN Board on May 22, 2023.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+2023-05-25 Final Proposed Agenda for 05/25/2023, GNSO Council Meetings]</ref>


==References==
==References==