<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Jeff, Anne and All</p>
<p>In response to Jeff's question of last night, and also to Anne's
email below, part of the problem here is that an IRT does not
define its own policy issues. Pre-launch IRTs are expressly not
allowed to do that and now, thanks to your work Anne, there are
ways to enforce against overreach.</p>
<p>But the Standing IRT or the Post-Launch IRT is being designed
expressly to handle unforeseen issues from soup to nuts -- and
that's a problem from a structural and procedural perspective. In
Round 1, unanticipated issues dotted New gTLD landscape: a flood
of GAC warnings, digital archery, voluntary commitments being
thrown into contracts without review, and more. Many of these
issues required policy decisions. As we discussed and confirmed
last night, a standing IRT or a post-launch IRT can't make
policy. </p>
<p>This leaves open the larger question of what issues would fall
under the IRT(s) and how the policy issues will be identified,
analyzed, assessed and handled?<br>
</p>
<p>Some more specific questions come to mind:</p>
<p>1) How do we create a Gateway -- a group which screens incoming
issues for whether they are policy or not? We have to be very
careful here. This group must include members of the GNSO
Council, the group charged with oversight of the policy policy. <br>
</p>
<p>2) If the issues/newly raised questions <i>are policy </i>--
what do we do next? This group cannot be the Standing IRT. Who
will it be and how will they work? Bundling is likely to play a
role here, as is public comment, GNSO Council and Board oversight.
<br>
</p>
<p>3) If the issues/newly raised questions <i>are procedural </i>-
what do we do? Who makes these decisions? How to we ensure that
those communities who are generally underrepresented in IRTs have
the opportunity to provide input, concerns and oversight? As
noted in the comments of the Registries, there may be applicants
who have interested in these decisions who are not part of the
multistakeholder process. So too, there will be registrant groups
and other communities -- with direct interest in these decisions
who are not part of the multistakeholder process. How do we reach
them and bring in their issues, concerns and expertise? <br>
</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/30/2019 5:36 PM, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:71d072b3d40b47759c19ba327b1ab363@lrrc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Lucida Console";
panose-1:2 11 6 9 4 5 4 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
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.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:#1F497D;}
.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;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0">Regarding yesterday's call and
the attempt to measure consensus on the recommendation for a
“Standing IRT”, changing the name of that recommended body
actually creates more confusion rather than less. The
reasons are:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0">Initial Report and Public
Comment.</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"> The Initial Report recommended
a "Standing IRT". There is a common understanding in the
ICANN community about what an IRT does, how it is
constituted, and what its powers are and are not. The
documentation in GNSO procedures lays out the rules re IRT,
including the composition of such a team which requires
broad representation across the community. These
understandings are codified in the GNSO Council Operating
Procedures and in the Consensus Policy Implementation
Framework. If the proposed body is renamed, this would
require additional public comment which would include the
need to specify how such a body would be constituted and
what is powers would be.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0">Effect on Existing GNSO
Procedures and ICANN ByLaws.</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"> Once you apply a new name to
this proposed new body designed specifically to address
implementation issues post-launch, you have an animal that
is not recognized in the Consensus Policy Implementation
Framework nor in the GNSO Input, Guidance, and EPDP
processes and is thus not incorporated into the language of
those processes. Therefore, you will either have created a
need for massive redrafting (including redrafting of the
ICANN ByLaws) OR you will have removed that new body from
the application of those processes. Jeff says there is no
intention to change the applicability of the GNSO Input,
Guidance, and EPDP process post-launch so it does not really
make sense to name a new type of team that would require
significant changes to existing procedures (and maybe even
the ByLaws.) Thus, a "name change" for this body creates
more questions than it answers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0">Prior Work of the Policy and
Implementation WG.</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"> This has been a long-standing
issue in Sub Pro since Leadership initially took the
position that the GNSO Input, Guidance, and EPDP processes
do not apply after launch. This is categorically not true.
The Policy and Implementation Working Group examined
numerous examples of issues that arose “post-launch” in the
2012 round. We ultimately concluded it is fruitless to try
to characterize issues as either “policy” or
“implementation” since one person’s policy is another’s
implementation and vice versa. The mechanisms that were
developed after the 2012 round to address these issues were
specifically developed to apply WHENEVER the issue arise and
to keep control of the issues at GNSO Council in a very
transparent manner. It would be a massive change of policy
to offer a new construct that either (1) causes the results
of that PDP to have to be amended or (2) creates a new body
that operates outside the established procedures already
adopted by the Board and the GNSO.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0">If everyone is anxious to
simply clarify the time period in which the Team will
operate, why not just call the teams the “Pre-launch IRT”
and the “Post-launch IRT”. Much simpler and more
predictable – and requires a lot less redrafting.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0">Anne
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#AF272F">Anne
E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Of
Counsel</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">520.629.4428
office</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">520.879.4725
fax</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a
href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_new"
title="Email User" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#323232">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a></span><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">_____________________________</span><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part2.EA7A0E85.96C9A9D4@kathykleiman.com"
class="" width="115" height="46" border="0"></span><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">One
South Church Avenue, Suite 700</span><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Tucson,
Arizona 85701-1611</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:106%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a
href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_new" title="Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie Webpage"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#323232">lrrc.com</span></a></span><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"
width="336" valign="top"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida
Console";color:#7030A0"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#7030A0"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items -
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="center">
</span></div>
</div>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Please see below the notes from the
meeting today, 30 April 2019. 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: <a
href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Please also see the referenced document
at: <a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing"
title="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Julie<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>Notes and Action Items:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Action Items:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Staff will check on the ICANN Board
response to the GAC advice in the Helsinki Communique’ on new
gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- WG to come up with a different name for
the “standing IRT”. Maybe “Post Application Advisory Team”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Notes:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No
updates provided.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: <a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing</a>)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to
Accomplish<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- First bullet: replace “rounds” with
“procedures”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>2.2.1.c.1</u>: The Working Group
recommends no changes to the existing policy calling for
subsequent application rounds introduced in an ongoing,
orderly, timely and predictable manner.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Support from most commenters<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- GAC Advice and BC: Support for new
rounds but no rounds started until reviews (CCT-RT) are
complete. Need to do a cost-benefit analysis before starting
new round.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- WG is taking into consideration the
CCT-RT recommendations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discussion:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Policy does not have a demand component.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Action Item: Board response to GAC
Advice in the Helskinki Communique’.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Note that the CCT-RT did have an
economic study done by the Analysis Group, although perhaps
not a full cost-benefit analysis.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Concerns with maintaining the current
policy unless there are objections.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Unless there is a consensus on changing
precedent we should stay on the same path.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Can build on what we have learned, but
hard to do analysis on what people might want.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- If the WG wants to request for an
assessment to be done that will have to be approved by the
Council.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Calling for rounds introduced in an
ongoing orderly timely and predictable manner support came
from pretty much every group that responded in public comments
to the Initial Report.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- We have some qualifications from the
GAC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>2.2.1.e.1:</u> The 2007 Final Report
noted that success metrics would be developed around the New
gTLD Program. What are some specific metrics that the program
should be measured against?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Support from most commenters.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: ALAC,
BRG, BC, RySG – New Ideas<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discussion:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Good proposals for different types of
metrics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Need to define what we mean by success;
CCT-RT referred that issue to the SubPro WG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Questions and issues in the CCT-RT could
put some of these issues to rest.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- This WG could come up with a half dozen
categories (elements of the program) and develop definitions
of success for those – or develop targets, which is a less
loaded word.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Good conversation to continue on email.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- You could have a high-level structure
from the 2012 round (to foster diversity, encourage
competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS), then create
specific targets within that structure within that framework.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2.2.2 Predictability<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Support from most commenters<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- BC/RySG/IPC/ALAC (in response to e.1):
New Idea - The Standing IRT must be representative of the
community, but must also allow for the appointment of experts
where needed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations --
ICANN Org: Concerns/New Ideas<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discussion:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Can things in the model be improved so
that you can support it? If not, what takes its place?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Don’t think it’s in our authority to
replace the GNSO policy process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- We're not changing any of the policies
or processes that have been established.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Changes to policies after the launch
need to go through the GNSO policy process; the predictability
framework is for issues that come up outside of that process
and guidance to the standing IRT. In the report we called it
a standing IRT, but that seems to be confusing so we should
change the name. Could call it a “gateway” to decide what is
policy and what is not, and only looking at non-policy issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Need to be more conscious of the need
for predictability for third party interests. We use the term
“affected parties” for that reason.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- WG needs to come up with a different
name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe a Post Application
Advisory Team.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font size="1" face="Arial" color="Gray"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use
of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the
reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering
the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the sender. The information
transmitted in this message and any attachments may be
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential
use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>