<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Title content=""><meta name=Keywords content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle30
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle31
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle32
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle33
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle34
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle35
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle36
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle37
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle38
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle39
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle40
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle41
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:2141528708;
mso-list-template-ids:-1046194868;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 November. <i>These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording</i>. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>For reference see the documents at:<o:p></o:p></span></p><ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Drafting Team Discussion continued – Different TLD Types (Wiki Page: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw">https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw</a> and Working Document: <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit?usp=sharing</a> <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework (Wiki Page: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit?usp=sharing</a> <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Drafting Team Discussion continued – Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw">https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw</a> and Working Document:<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7dKOw/edit?usp=sharing</a> <o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Actions/Discussion Notes</span></b><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>1. SOIs: None.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>2. Work Track (WT) Updates from the WT co-leads:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 1: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Last call was on variable and fixed costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Next call is applicant support and applicant guidebook.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 2:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Call last week on vertical integration. Reviewed CC2 comments. Asking the full WT for input.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Got data from Compliance and need some follow-up information. Drafted and shared some new questions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 3:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>--Next meeting: Community based applications and community applications. Last discussion before moving on to the written phase of our evaluation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 4:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Work Track 4 canceled the last meeting because of lack of deliberation on the models.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Flesh out the various models more in the WT.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Work Track 5:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Meeting on 29 November at 0500 UTC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Working on a Terms of Reference. Need to decide these.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Need to agree on the letters back to the ccTLD, GAC and ALAC. Action ongoing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- In the meeting on 30 November the WT will be Discussing the risk model as a working model in the meeting. Slides will be shared for the meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'> WT5 timeline, you can see in the slides shared from the 15 Nov meeting on page 18: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580758/SubProWT5_15Nov2017_v0.1%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1510778257000&api=v2<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>3. Discussion on Working Group Timeline<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Goal is to get the Preliminary Report out by mid-April of 2018.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Timeline for Work Tracks 1-4, not Work Track 5.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>4. Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Language in the framework is quite vague.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- We have incorporated unpredictability.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Aspects of the new gTLD program may require a more nimble program than contemplated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Look at what happens after the normal end date of a non-gTLD policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Tried to define a "minor process update" -- no changes to AGB, and do not need to involve the community (proposed strawperson).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>--- Special Implementation Review Team for new gTLDs subsequent procedures?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Should there be a panel to advice ICANN staff after the program has already launched?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- IRT is collaborating with the community -- not just a pre-selected group. Standing panel may need to be empowered to consult with other entities. Trying to come up with something that is more predictable, with a more formal way for the SSAC to get feedback -- separate from or complementary to the public comment forum.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- An IRT is not the community, but is meant to be the surrogate com<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- The phases are assuming that people viewing it understanding the distinctions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- A lot of questions about boundaries -- look at page 6 of the document.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>-- Look at email and the Google doc: think about questions that are to be discussion -- if we did have an IRT/standing committee panel, how many members would we have and what would be there presentation/background?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>From the chat:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The Strawman Solution was nimble- but not exactly popular with some.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: There are numerous references in this draft framework to staff "collaboration with the community" and mention of various options. unless it is clear that staff has to let the policy determination be made by a Standing IRT, there is too much discretion on the issue of whether or not policy is involved. This issue and various case studies of problems that arose in the 2012 round was studied very carefully in the Policy and implementation Working Group. It is not a good idea to be asking staff to make the determination as to whether or not policy is involved. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): if operations are seriously affected by the change <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): slight change in the rules might cause it <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: The issue is what is or is not a minor process update. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): like small change to Letter of Credit <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I don't think it is needed , if ICANN .org oversteps or it is not minor then it fits with other parts of the framework<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: There are numerous references in this draft framework to staff "collaboration with the community" and mention of various options. unless it is clear that staff has to let the policy determination be made by a Standing IRT, there is too much discretion on the issue of whether or not policy is involved. This issue and various case studies of problems that arose in the 2012 round was studied very carefully in the Policy and implementation Working Group. It is not a good idea to be asking staff to make the determination as to whether or not policy is involved. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): if operations are seriously affected by the change <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): slight change in the rules might cause it <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: The issue is what is or is not a minor process update. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): like small change to Letter of Credit <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I don't think it is needed , if ICANN .org oversteps or it is not minor then it fits with other parts of the framework<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Is there an option in Google Docs to see a post-suggested form of the document?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Exactly<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: The link Steve provided has the suggestions on it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: So a clean copy with the suggestions reflected is what I was inquiring about.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Moving to <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Thanks, Steve. I wasn't sure if there was a view format for that like in Word.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Pages<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The question then becomes what changes are "procedural" and what changes are "substantive". Once again it's about who makes that determination. The Policy and Implemtation WG decided it was impossible to determine in advance differences in policy versus implementation but now it appears we are attempting to override all that work. This is a failure to learn from past mistakes and a failure to accept the work done by the Policy and Implementation Working Group, which was very carefully done. "Collaborating with the community" and "staff will work with the community" and "communicate with the affected parties" is very vague stuff unless there is a formal standing IRT process that is required. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: @Jeff: Expedited PDP, GNSO Input Process, GNSO Guidance Process<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: or Unilateral Right to Amend contract by ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): +1 Jim , good example<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jim Prendergast: yeah it was 2013<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): 5<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): I think it should be something like SSC where members represent the particular parts of community <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: yes, all good points requiring consideration and discussion -- roles and membership in IRT, that is.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: New gTLD Program Implementation Review Report, mentioned by Jeff, here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-01-29-en<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Annebeth Lange: You are talking about staff making changes, but how about situations where ICANN Board make changes?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT : I support the Standing IRT - all issues encountered by staff in implementation should be raised with the Standing Panel so no one accuses staff of making policy. If it's actually pure implementation, it won't even arise as an issue for discussion. COMMENT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I thiink it is a good idea<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Hadia Elminiawi: I think it is a good idea<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Annebeth Lange: I agree, it seems like a good idea. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Greg Shatan: I think it is a good idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sophia Feng: It is not okey Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sara Bockey: Agree. Standing IRT is a good idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sophia Feng: It should be standardized and any changes should be communicated properly<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Christa Taylor: If a process/service/etc. isn’t meeting the requirements as expected than ICANN should be able to fix the issue without delay. Changes to policy/process that is outside of expectations or required due to circumstances than I think it could be helpful in expediting the situation<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: A good idea. But, I want to understand what we are discussing here better. An IRT is a bit more restrictive but can be open as well. I don't know background of how IRTs are normally formed, but we are discussing the requirements for what that IRT would look like, right? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: After program launch.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You can use the green tick if you agree with the General Concept of a Standing IRT (if we do beleive it is worth considering further then we can go on to fine tune qualitites and qualifications for Membership etc.,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sophia Feng: Yes it is good idea, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: That definitely provides better clarity. Standing means that it is functional past program launch.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Thank you for the clarity and that is a very good idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: agree with need for IRT -- membership should be relatively small to keep it manageable and comprise of both people who are well versed with operational and policy knowledge.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Requiring expertise in backend registry operations excludes numerous members of "the community". it would necessarily weight changes in favor of contracted parties. This does not recognize that issues that arise during implementation are far broader than operations issues - e.,g. the Strawman Solution, Specification 13 for brands, PICs to address GAC Advice as to safeguards, etc etc etc<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): it would effectivly be an "oncall group post launch<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Sophia Feng: What's the procedure of structuring and selecting the panel members to make it more efficient should be considered as well<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: people with policy knowledge could be drawn from members in PDP WG in order to remind IRT on background of policy where applicable<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Hadia Elminiawi: @cheryl why post launch? why not before?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Quoc Pham: I remember - RDAP<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You might all also refer to the General information here to assist your deliberations https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Quoc Pham: also changes to WHOIS output requirements<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: I think if we looked at the next page as well, that might offer more clarity to at what point the standing IRT would be involved.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with hadia re pre-launch Standing IRT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): fully constituted GNSO PDP would take years , durign which applicants bleed money till the bancrupcy stage <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): the term Implementation indicates post PDP but it could form pre launch I supose Hadia<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: don't see why it can't be pre-launch standing IRT, it would be great for ICANN to be able to say they have standing IRT to deal with implementational issues as they arise.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: Perhaps this should form after the PDP final report and for staff to use as a consulting resource for drafting the AGB?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: And functions post-launch as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Quoc Pham: i guess we need to draw boundaries on what the standing panel covers. we should be careful that the standing panel themselves don't become a roadblock, it should be advisory but not necessarily be authorative<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Steve Chan: @Jeff, I think Alan had his hand up first.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: @Quoc - Agree - So lets come up with those boundaries<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You might all also refer to the General information here to assist your deliberations https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Greg Shatan: FWIW, I don’t think the strawman was “policy,” which just means its a bad example for these purposes....<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Annebeth Lange: Perhaps looking to the way a lot of the ccTLDs do it? I use NORID, as registry for .no, as an example. Since the registry is acting on the behalf of the Local Internet Community, the registry cannot unilaterally change the terms & conditions for the registrants unless there is only a minor, procedural point. If of vital importance we have to have a public consultation. If important, but not vital, we ask our Advisosry Board, consisting of participants for the Local Internet Community. But if our Board instruct us to change something, we have to do it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Action Item: Call this something different :)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Alan Greenberg: @Greg, yes. There were a number of changes that were made that can easily be construed as policcy, since there wwa no other mechanism to handle such a channge at that point in time. Times have now changed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Standing Community Implementation Advisory Group/Panel?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Michael Flemming: If these are appointed/elected members, I think Panel is more appropriate<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Greg and Alan - I may agree with the observation that the Strawman Solution was implementation. Some on GNSO Council so strongly disagreed with that - that a letter was written to the Board objecting to it and stating that the Board absolutely had to consult again with GNSO when it made such changes. In fact, Jeff authored that letter so it should be obvious from this one example how easy it is for reasonable people to disagree as to what is policy and what is implementation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): for appointed members there is a need for support process <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Yes Steve in the doc I referred to earlier the WG for that though log and hard on matters such as how to populate and constitute an IRT<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Greg Shatan: Standing Panel for Implementation Guidance, Oversight & Transparency (SPIGOT).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): where the consistuancy expresses support to particular members / appoint them<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Justine Chew: just to clarify, in my previous comments re IRT, I was referring to this new panel (post IRT) which name has yet to be set. :-) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): LOL Greg - go with the FLOW<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Christa Taylor: How about urgent or major types of changes in operations? A criteria list with points may be one method to determine where it sits w/in the categories i.e. costs, level of risk, timeline impact on applicants, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Annebeth Lange: This is how we do it when changes are done: https://www.norid.no/en/regelverk/norpol/ <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): numbers heavily depend on the model <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Re Composition - Alan's point is very relevant - IRT represents the community.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Greg Shatan: The multi-non-stakeholder model doesn’t make much sense.... We can’t avoid <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Greg Shatan: interests; we do need to balance them out.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): full transparency does not go well with confidentiality<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): There are always ways to try and manage those tensions I suspect though Maxim<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): we just need to look to and suggest some ;-)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Hadia Elminiawi: Ok rhanks Jeff<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Focus on composition and requirements for Standing IRT makes sense. Again, consultation with this Standing Panel should not be optional where something that is characterized as an "issue" is concerned. Such consultation should be mandatory if there is an ISSUE that arises during implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: Thanks @Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.5pt'>Jeff Neuman: I think we should put something like that in this proposal<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>