Comments on Transition to Delegation
My personal concern here is that staff has added more than is necessary. We should be able to get another .museum through the system, without having to wave our hands at DNSSEC and IPv6 and monitoring. Basically, I'm simply referencing my detailed comments from the GFAv1 on the subject, which given the attention to the issues in modules 1-4 I fully understand staff not yet having worked though here.
At the Rome meeting in 2004 I spoke to the Board on how the application process in the 2000 round, and the redelegations, had created both a higher cost than necessary to the applicants (application writing became an art of enticement) and lower information to staff (what part, if any, in this application is literally true?). With the somewhat silly emphasis on DNSSEC and IPv6 and monitoring we're in the position of forcing people to lie to get the job done.
We shouldn't be doing this. The vast gap between actual and expected v6 adoption and the deployment of Carrier Grade NAT and all the network fragility that entails won't be fixed by making some gTLD registries v6 addressable. The vast gap between DNSSEC being understood to be necessary and the date that any TLDs adopted DNSSEC and the microscopic amount of widely held operator (registry, registrar and registrant) DNSSEC clue isn't going to be fixed by making some gTLD registries (but not Verisign's primary properties) signed.
We should have reasonable goals here, but sticking this kind of stuff into the new gTLD application process is not reasonable. If anything, these are post-start changes to operating procedure, to be sought by consent of the operator.
I work for CORE, CORE will submit applications, so this interest in the outcome should be included in my comment.