<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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 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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.xmsoplaintext, li.xmsoplaintext, div.xmsoplaintext
{mso-style-name:x_msoplaintext;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle22
{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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Jeff, please don’t delete portions of my comments or cites to text from the Operating Procedures when you reply to my input. When you do, that makes things difficult for those who are only reading from the
latest message and scrolling down. Thank you in advance for respecting this request.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">It is helpful that you suggest that the newly named entity would abide by the same GNSO rules and procedures as an IRT. Not sure why your statement is conditioned upon the word “generally” or why you would
call it anything other than a “Post-Launch IRT”. The word “generally” leaves too much wiggle room when the WG solicited public comment on a “Standing IRT”. If you call it a “Post-Launch Standing IRT”, you eliminate ALL confusion and you don’t’ have to use
the word “generally” or go out for more public comment if you have Consensus. (You also don’t have to create a new ICANN acronym that no one understands unless they have been on this Working Group.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Regarding our disagreement as to the time frame for applicability of the GNSO Annexes, I don’t see any references to “pre-launch” and “post-launch” in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) or any
references to new issues that arise post-launch. The only reference in the CPIF is to “Policy Effective Date”. The new recommendation in the Initial Report would modify the CPIF because it would provide for a Standing IRT post-launch. <b>Please note the
CPIF states the IRT has to be briefed on the GNSO Input and GNSO Guidance processes and this same briefing should be required for any Post-Launch IRT in order to ensure GNSO oversight is in place post-launch. (Thus my conclusion that there is too much wiggle
room in your use of the word “generally”.)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Obviously the GNSO Annexes for further Council work apply at any time, including post-launch. Otherwise, how could GNSO have possibly initiated and conducted an EPDP on the Temp Spec when that Annex came out
of the same recommendations? In this regard, please note that the three processes specifically refer to “new issues”. <b>Hopefully you are not suggesting that GNSO Council loses its oversight authority or ability to avail itself of these Input and Guidance
processes after an application window opens?</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">See again the highlighted language below from GNSO Guidance and GNSO Input Annexes which states, for example, as to GNSO Input that a “
<b>GIP MAY BE INITIATED BY THE GNSO COUNCIL AT ANY TIME IT CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE</b>”. - PLEASE DON’T DELETE THIS LANGUAGE OR THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION OF THE TEXT FROM THE MANUALS WHEN YOU REPLY:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366">GNSO Input Process Manual -
<a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.pdf">
<span style="color:#0563C1">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.pdf</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">GNSO Input Process (GIP) Introduction</span></b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">: A GIP is the process through which
the <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">GNSO provides input on matters that may not involve gTLD policy</span>, for example in response to a request from the ICANN Board or in response to a public comment forum as further described in this
GIP Manual. Any such requests should include as much information as possible. <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">
A GIP may be initiated by the GNSO Council at any time it considers appropriate</span>, for example, when a request for GNSO input is received from the ICANN Board or other entity that does not involve the creation of new obligations for ICANN contracted parties
and does not relate to a topic otherwise suitable for a GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Guidance Process, for example providing GNSO Input to a public comment forum.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366">GNSO Guidance Manual -
<a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-5-ggp-manual-18jun18-en.pdf">
<span style="color:#0563C1">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-5-ggp-manual-18jun18-en.pdf</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:17.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">GNSO Guidance Process Manual</span></b><b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">1.GGP Manual –Introduction</span></b><span style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">:
These guidelines and processes supplement the requirements for GGPs described in Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws [include link].
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">A GGP may be initiated by the GNSO Council when a request for input relating to gTLDs</span>
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">(either a new issue or in relation to previous policy recommendations)</span> has been received from the ICANN Board or a gTLD issue has been identified by the GNSO Council that would benefit from GNSO Guidance,
and it has determined that the intended outcome of the GGP is not expected to create new “Consensus Policy” recommendations including, but not limited to, any new contractual obligations for contracted parties (in which case a PDP would need to be initiated).
However, <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">the GGP may provide interpretation or assist in providing clarity with regards to the implementation of GNSO policy recommendations</span>. The GGP should not be used as a tool to reopen a previously
explored policy issue only because a constituency or stakeholder group was not satisfied with outcome of a previously held process on the same policy issue, unless the circumstances have changed and/or new information is available</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#993366">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><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><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 5:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019<o:p></o:p></span></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" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Please see my comments in </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#C82613">red below.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:#323130"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0">[Anne] 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#C82613">[Jeff] I do not agree that simply changing the name of the body would require additional public comment. In fact we could state in the report something to the effect of: "Because
of the confusion caused between the term we used in the Initial Report, and how that term is generally used to describe a team responsible for the implementation of GNSO policies, we have changed the name to the "Standing New gTLD Advisory Group" (SNAG).
Though we have changed the name, this new group should abide by the same rules and procedures generally applicable to Implementation Review Teams as set forth in existing GNSO Procedures".</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#C82613">Why would that not solve the issue?</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0">[Anne] 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#C82613">[Jeff] Applying the same language above would fix all of this. We are not modifying any existing process.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0">[Anne] 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. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#C82613">[Jeff] I know this has been your argument all along, but the documentation does not support your view. See <a href="https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation">https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation</a> and <a href="https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf">https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf</a>.
These all show that the IRT's work is prior to the Policy Effective Date. For the new gTLD process, that would be the day that the application window launches. I don't see anything that supports your view.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0">[Anne] 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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#C82613">[Jeff] I dont disagree that distinguishing between policy and implementation is difficult. But this Predictability Framework does not change anything regarding transparency or any
existing process.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0">[Anne] 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.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#C82613">[Jeff] For the reasons above, I do not share the view that calling something a Pre-Launch or a Post Launch IRT will clear up the confusion or require much re-drafting.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#C82613">Lets see what others in the group think.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#323130"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<p><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Jeff Neuman</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Senior Vice President </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Com Laude | Valideus<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">1751 Pinnacle Drive
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Suite 600, McLean</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">VA 22102, USA</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
M: +1.202.549.5079</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">D: +1.703.635.7514</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">E: </span>
<u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a></span></u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<a href="http://www.comlaude.com/">www.comlaude.com</a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><img border="0" width="345" height="63" id="_x0000_i1026" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D4FF7E.A2B7E570"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 5:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Julie Hedlund; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Jeff Neuman<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><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:</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><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.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><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.</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0">Anne
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#AF272F">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Of Counsel</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">520.629.4428 office</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">520.879.4725 fax</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_new" title="Email User"><span style="color:#323232">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">_____________________________</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img border="0" width="115" height="46" id="x_Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image002.png@01D4FF7E.A2B7E570"></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">One South Church Avenue, Suite 700</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="xmsonormal" style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_new" title="Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie Webpage"><span style="color:#323232">lrrc.com</span></a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="336" valign="top" style="width:3.5in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console";color:#7030A0"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7030A0"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><a name="x__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Gnso-newgtld-wg [<a 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 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></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><strong><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
</div>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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">
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Julie Hedlund, Policy Director<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsoplaintext"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Notes and Action Items:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Action Items:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Staff will check on the ICANN Board response to the GAC advice in the Helsinki Communique’ on new gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- WG to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe “Post Application Advisory Team”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Notes:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing</a>)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- First bullet: replace “rounds” with “procedures”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">2.2.1.c.1</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">: 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Support from most commenters<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- WG is taking into consideration the CCT-RT recommendations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Policy does not have a demand component.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Action Item: Board response to GAC Advice in the Helskinki Communique’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Concerns with maintaining the current policy unless there are objections.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Unless there is a consensus on changing precedent we should stay on the same path.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Can build on what we have learned, but hard to do analysis on what people might want.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- We have some qualifications from the GAC.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">2.2.1.e.1:</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Support from most commenters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: ALAC, BRG, BC, RySG – New Ideas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Good proposals for different types of metrics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Need to define what we mean by success; CCT-RT referred that issue to the SubPro WG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Questions and issues in the CCT-RT could put some of these issues to rest.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Good conversation to continue on email.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">2.2.2 Predictability<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Support from most commenters<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations -- ICANN Org: Concerns/New Ideas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Discussion:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Can things in the model be improved so that you can support it? If not, what takes its place?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- Don’t think it’s in our authority to replace the GNSO policy process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- We're not changing any of the policies or processes that have been established.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- 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></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- WG needs to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe a Post Application Advisory Team.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error,
please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited
t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and
registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc.
dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan.
For further information see <a href="https://comlaude.com" target="_blank">www.comlaude.com</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><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>
</body>
</html>