[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 26 May 1500 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting on 26 May at 1500 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-05-26+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Kind regards,
Julie

Notes and Action Items:

Actions:

2.2.2 Predictability:
Predictability Framework: Categories of Changes to the New gTLD Program after Approval of the Applicant Guidebook
ACTION ITEM: Leadership will re-write the section and chart based on the discussion.

2.2.2 Predictability: Predictability Framework: Categories of Changes to the New gTLD Program after Approval of the Applicant Guidebook
Possible Policy Level Changes [Changes that May Have a Policy Implication]
ACTION ITEM: WG should review the change and indicate whether members agree.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Discussion of Final Report Topics:

a. 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing

Predictability Framework: Categories of Changes to the New gTLD Program after Approval of the Applicant Guidebook
Possible Policy Level Changes [Changes that May Have a Policy Implication]

Discussion:
-- SPIRT is not starting a policy development process.
-- Looks like they are -- this is a change in terms of how the Council has functioned.
-- It would be a change, but more as an advisory role.
-- If there’s an issue that may be policy, the standing committee is a tool to allow the Council to operate more efficiently to determine whether something is policy.
-- With the wording as it is it seems that the SPIRT would be the first of all advisors.
-- GNSO Council can take an issue away from the SPIRT at any time.
-- Question: Could it go to the Council first?  Then if not policy it goes to the SPIRT?  Answer: The problem is that the Council takes a minimum of 60 days on any issue.
-- Should circumvent the Council because it takes too long.
-- The biggest issue is how you determine which bucket the issue belongs in - A, B, C, D, or E - Council has to have the final say on that. but there is an issue as to how quickly Council could make that determination.
-- GNSO Council aside, don't forget that the Board and ICANN Org could also send things to SPIRT.
-- We have different understandings of what the SPIRT is supposed to do.  It needs to be more than a sorting function.  If it decides something is an operational issue it should work with ICANN Org to see if the solution makes sense.
-- What if the SPIRT said something is a policy issue but if you did it another way it wouldn’t be policy, when working with ICANN Org?
-- What is the check/balance to keep staff from determining something is operational and not sending it to the SPIRT?

ACTION ITEM: Leadership will re-write the section and chart based on the discussion.

b. Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing

2.4.2 Communications:

First comment re: Affirmation xx:
The Working Group affirms Implementation Guideline C and Implementation Guideline M from the 2007 Final Report:

  *   Implementation Guideline C: “ICANN will provide frequent communications with applicants and the public including comment forums which will be used to inform evaluation panels.
JC1.1 - Justine Chew proposed adding a footnote. Rationale: "Proposed change does not impact rationale but instead adds necessary clarity by addressing omission of a dependency to the Role of Application Comment section."
Staff added a footnote: “Usage to inform evaluation panels is addressed more specifically in section xx Role of Application Comment.”

Second comment re: Implementation Guidance xx:
Re: “For timeliness, the Working Group believes that for the next subsequent round, the Communications Period should [must] begin at least six (6) months prior to the beginning of the application submission period.”
JC1.3 - Justine Chew proposed changing the word "should" to "must" in this sentence. Rationale: "1. Since insufficient awareness of the Program prior to the last round is well acknowledged, this Implementation Guidance ought to prescribe – not merely suggest – a minimum time period for the next round’s Communications Period. 2. Prior WG discussion on the distinction between the terms “must” and “should” and when either ought to be used, applies."
Staff changed to [must] in brackets.

ACTION ITEM: WG should review the change and indicate whether members agree.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200526/10880491/attachment-0001.html>