<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>A belated thanks to Anne for providing the links below. I am
reviewing them before our meeting today -- and suggest that
everyone should. We don't want to "recreate the wheel" and it
turns out that a lot of the issues we are discussing and debating
have already been reviewed by the GNSO Council -- and steps taken.
For those of us who were focused on other things at the time
(including me!), thanks to Anne for posting these links and
sharing your insights and expertise as a participant in these
processes.</p>
<p>Tx to all for reading over these materials before our meeting!
They are not long and they are well-written.<br>
</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/30/2019 8:35 PM, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e7ae1299484e4b77bdcabdaac09f68d4@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 \;color\:\#7030A0";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \,serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
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;
color:black;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
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;
color:black;}
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;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
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;
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:#993366;}
.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="color:#993366">Hi Kathy – I
want to preface my comments below with the statement that I
personally support the “general agreement” Initial Report
preliminary recommendation for a “Standing IRT”. I do not
support changing the name to anything other than
“Post-launch IRT” since the term IRT is well-defined in GNSO
Operating Procedures in a manner that is designed to
guarantee oversight and transparency. It is also referenced
in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework which is
integrated with existing GNSO Input and Guidance procedures
designed to address issues arising both pre-launch and
post-launch. (Significantly, public comment was obtained in
relation to a “Standing IRT” and not in relation to any
other entity so renaming the entity is not at all likely to
“eliminate confusion”.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366">The issues you
have raised below are EXACTLY the issues and concerns
reviewed at length by the Policy and Implementation Working
Group using “real life” examples from the 2012 round post
launch. Thus, Annex L of the GNSO Policy&
Implementation Working Group Final Report specifies the
following
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366">IRT Principles
and Guidelines: <a
href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug16-en.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug16-en.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366">Whether it is a
“Pre-launch IRT” or a “Post-launch IRT”, and whether the
issue that arises is characterized by some as “policy” and
by others as “implementation”, the same principles of
oversight and transparency should apply. IN THIS REGARD,
PLEASE SEE V. E. OF THE IRT PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES which
applies<b> “In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff
and the IRT or any of its members on the
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">implementation
approach</span> proposed by ICANN staff…”
</b>and goes on to define the role of the GNSO liaison in
that event<b>.</b> In other words, a “Post-launch IRT” by
any other name should still be a post-launch IRT as to which
the same Principles and Guidelines apply. Otherwise, the
community risks losing the GNSO Council oversight system
which is currently baked into the Operating Procedures and
the ByLaws.
<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366">If I represent
registry or registrar interests, I want a faster solution to
my implementation issues and problems. That is
understandable because time (delay) is money (poor cash flow
and balance sheet). But again, one person’s
“Implementation” is another person’s “Policy” and this is
why the Sub Pro WG has to be very careful when addressing
subjects like the Predictability Framework as well as some
other recommendations coming later in relation to ICANN
Org’s power/ability to resolve implementation issues
post-launch. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#993366">For anyone
interested in a deeper understanding of how the existing
GNSO Annexes apply to issues that arise during
implementation, please see the IRT Principles and
Guidelines above as well as the links to GNSO Input and
GNSO Guidance below:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-3-input-process-manual-18jun18-en.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">GNSO
Input Process (GIP) Introduction</span></b><span
style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">:
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. A GIP may be initiated by the GNSO
Council at any time it considers appropriate, 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="color:#993366"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="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"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-5-ggp-manual-18jun18-en.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:17.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">GNSO
Guidance Process Manual</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">1.GGP
Manual –Introduction</span></b><span
style="font-size:15.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">:
These guidelines and processes supplement the requirements
for GGPs described in Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws [include
link]. A GGP may be initiated by the GNSO Council when a
request for input relating to gTLDs
<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="color:#993366"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#993366">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#993366"><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="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="color:windowtext"> Kathy Kleiman
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Aikman-Scalese, Anne
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com"><AAikman@lrrc.com></a>; Julie Hedlund
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org"><julie.hedlund@icann.org></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Jeff Neuman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com"><jeff.neuman@comlaude.com></a><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">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="center">
</div>
</div>
<p>Jeff, Anne and All<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Some more specific questions come to mind:<o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></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?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 4/30/2019 5:36 PM, Aikman-Scalese,
Anne wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif">Initial Report and Public
Comment.</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> 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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif">Effect on Existing GNSO
Procedures and ICANN ByLaws.</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> 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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif">Prior Work of the Policy and
Implementation WG.</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> 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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif">Anne
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#AF272F">Anne
E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Of
Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">520.629.4428
office</span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">520.879.4725
fax</span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><a
href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_new"
title="Email User" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">_____________________________</span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><img
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part6.0B446545.F3FBFFEE@kathykleiman.com"
alt="imap://kathy%40kathykleiman%2Ecom@gmmn-6gkh.accessdomain.com:993/fetch%3EUID%3E.INBOX%3E265154?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.png"
class="" width="115" height="46" border="0"></span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">One
South Church Avenue, Suite 700</span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">Tucson,
Arizona 85701-1611</span><o:p></o:p></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:105%"><a
href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_new" title="Lewis
Roca Rothgerber Christie Webpage"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;line-height:105%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232">lrrc.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></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"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Console
;color:#7030A0",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#7030A0"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></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
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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">[EXTERNAL]</span></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman ,serif",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:</b><o:p></o:p></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:</b><o:p></o:p></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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><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>
<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><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</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>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>