<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><p>Hi All,</p>
<p>I'll second Anne's note that the "language in the middle of the chart
does not seem accurate." My concern is that that, to paraphrase Paul,
the SPIRT is being treated as a mini-GNSO or even (my words) a
supra-GNSO. I actually think the wording is not to hard to mend -- and
the chart is fixable -- but only with clear qualification (and word
changes) to show what we already agreed after extensive weeks of
discussion: that the SPIRT does not make policy and does not change the
way GNSO policy is made. <br /></p>
<p>Right now, by the report and the chart, all roads lead to SPIRT, and
unless the SPIRT opines then nothing happens on policy issues. But
that's not our Multistakeholder process. <br /></p>
<p>The idea that all "Issues identified as type C, D and E would
generally speaking be expected to be referred to the SPIRT" [middle
chart, GNSO Council row] can't be right. This is because D and E are
"possible policy level changes." Clearly the GNSO Council can share
issues with the SPIRT -- for insight and input -- but this call for the
GNSO Council to send everything involving gTLDs to SPIRT to consider
first and foremost is misplaced. The GNSO Council can develop policy
issue as it sees fit per its rules - and there are several possible
paths. <br /></p>
<p>The hold of the SPIRT over gTLD policy is further confirmed in the next part of the chart: <br /></p>
<p>"However, the GNSO Council may elect to refrain from forwarding an issue to the SPIRT. A non-exhaustive list includes:</p>
<p>- The Council does not agree that the issue requires resolution.</p>
<p>- The Council believes an issue is unambiguously a policy issue."</p>
<p>==> All, this is getting close to a "pure policy test."
Specifically, the test seems to be that only if the new gTLD issue is
"purely policy" does the SPIRT not get the first or major word on the
issue. In our world, however, virtually nothing is purely policy
because we are a technical policy community -- even RPMs (as close to
pure policy as you can get) have considerable technical and operational
elements. <br /></p>
<p>That's D and E (see chart below my signature). But even "C" is a
problem -- major operational issues -- "new process [or significant
change to internal processes]" -- can introduce changes and implications
for already-decided policy; these implications may be not be clear or
obvious and, in many cases, should be reviewed widely -- among users and
contracted parties. For example, significant changes to the Trademark
Clearinghouse could have enormous intended (and unintended) implications
for policy and impact on the wide and varied set of users and
contracted parties who rely on it. As many initial processes were
created by the Community, and reviewed by the Community, so too should
changes along the way be evaluated by the whole community -- that's a
GNSO process. SPIRT may be an input, but should only be one of many. <br /></p>
<p>The Predictability Framework can be fixed; it will take some key
wording change to re-sets the wording to our carefully-negotiated
agreement of some months ago (and not one all agreed to). <br /></p>
<p>This way, we can prevent SPIRT from becoming a mini-GNSO or supra-GNSO.</p>
<p>Best, Kathy</p>
<p>p.s. from SubPro report text: C, D and E<br /></p>
<div align="left" style="margin-left:0pt;" dir="ltr"><table style="border:none;border-collapse:collapse;"><colgroup><col width="203" /><col width="102" /><col width="319" /></colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:0pt;"><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;"><p style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">C - Operational - new process [or significant change to internal process]</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:0pt;"><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;"><p style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">D - Possible policy level changes</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:0pt;"><td style="border-left:solid #000000 1pt;border-right:solid #000000 1pt;border-bottom:solid #000000 1pt;border-top:solid #000000 1pt;vertical-align:top;padding:5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt;"><p style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;" dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;">E - Possible policy level new proposals</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br /></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div><div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br /></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">----- Original Message -----<br /></div><blockquote><div style="width:100%;background:rgb(228,228,228);"><div style="font-weight:bold;">From:</div> "Aikman-Scalese Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com></div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">To:</div>"Steve Chan" <steve.chan@icann.org>, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</div>Thu, 21 May 2020 19:11:44 +0000<br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</div>RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes<br /><br /><br /><div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">Jeff, Cheryl, Steve et al,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">Regarding the process chart, and as discussed on last night’s call, the language in the middle of the chart does not seem accurate. It says that issues “identified” as fitting in A or B are expected to be
<u>decided</u> by ICANN staff. The issue raised in the call last night was who gets to “identify” what bucket the issue falls in. I see staff working with the SPIRT to make those recommendations. SPIRT may agree with staff that an issue falls into A or B,
but Staff should not itself have the final call if there’s an issue. In all cases, buckets A, B, C, D, and E, GNSO Council has the FINAL call. SPIRT is there to discuss and try to classify which bucket the issue goes in and NOT to make policy if it believes
that a policy issue is involved. It’s not at all workable to have one person on the SPIRT be able to kick an issue up to GNSO as policy if the majority believe it can be handled by staff or handled with GNSO Input or Guidance (rather than through policy-making).
(Remember that any GNSO action always takes precedence over the SPIRT .)</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">This “sorting into buckets” function is why it is so important for the SPIRT to have members from all parts of the community (which is supposed to be the case for regular IRTs as per the section I pasted in
chat last night – see Section C of IRT Recruitment in the attachment). It Is clearly NOT working at all to pick and choose different parts of the IRT Guidelines to try to structure the SPIRT as we have done in the current draft. When you do that, you get
“the SPIRT may not be representative” and you leave out FOUNDATIONAL language like “SPIRT recruiting must be very broad and invitations should go to all former regular attending members of the PDP Working Group” which is in Item C of the IRT Guidelines. For
some reason, the draft we have now says the SPIRT team should include at least ONE member of the PDP WG. Why would there be such emphasis on getting just ONE member of the PDP for this Standing IRT? And why do we want to emphasize that the SPIRT may not
be representative rather than emphasizing that recruitment should be broad as shown in the attached IRT Principles and Guidelines?</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">(Last night Paul asked to see the IRT Guidelines. They are attached for your consideration before the next call.)</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">Donna mentioned that staff runs the IRT process. The Guidelines for IRTs state that the staff member is the GDD Project Manager. Every IRT appoints among its members a GNSO Council Liaison. I’m not sure why
we have to call the person heading the SPIRT team a “Chair”. What is wrong with GNSO Council Liaison? THE SPIRIT DOES NOT DECIDE ANYTHING, IT SHOULD CONSIDER ANY ISSUE WITH STAFF AND RECOMMEND WHICH BUCKET THE ISSUE BELONGS IN – A, B, C, D, or E. Staff
should not be telling the SPIRT that something that comes up as an issue in the implementation phase will not be coming to the SPIRT because staff believes it fits in A or B. Staff should be bringing that issue to the SPIRT to see whether the SPIRT agrees
that it is in Bucket A or B.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">Similarly, Issues that the SPIRT believes fall in C, D, or E, are opportunities for the SPIRT to<u> identify</u> issues, recommend a method of resolving, e.g. use GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, GNSO EPDP, or even
GNSO PDP and <b>send that recommendation to the GNSO Council</b>. The SPIRT DOES NOT MAKE POLICY. It’s a Standing IRT. It works with staff to make recommendations to process issues in an efficient manner within GNSO guidelines and processes. All IRT Principles
and Guidelines should apply unless there is a clear reason to deviate and so far, I don’t see why we are trying to create a different animal when the Public Comment was – yes, give us a Standing IRT because we know issues arise at later stages.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">Thank you,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;">Anne</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Chan<br /><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:07 PM<br /><b>To:</b> Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br /><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes</p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear WG Members,</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One of the action items from the 18 May WG call was to develop a process flow chart to help illustrate how the SPIRT may operate. Attached, please find a draft prepared by staff and WG leadership. Note, we try to share documents at a minimum,
24 hours ahead of the call, but there was a short turnaround between calls in this instance. Hopefully this document is still helpful to the discussions for the upcoming call.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steve</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;">Gnso-newgtld-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund
<<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br /><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:46 AM<br /><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br /><b>Subject: </b>[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes</span></p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Dear all,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-spacing:0px;">
<span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-spacing:0px;">
<span style="color:#000000;">Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on </span><b>Thursday, 21 May
<span style="color:#000000;">2020 at </span>03<span style="color:#000000;">:00 UTC </span></b><span style="color:#000000;">for<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><b>90<span style="color:#FF0000;">
</span><span style="color:#000000;">minutes.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;">Proposed Agenda:</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<ol type="1" style="margin-top:0in;" start="1"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#000000;">Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest<p></p></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Discussion of Final Report Topics</span>:
<p></p></li></ol><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1in;text-indent:-.25in;">
<span>a.<span style="font:7pt 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span>2.2.2 Predictability: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing</a>, start at page 10</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:1in;text-indent:-.25in;">
<span>b.<span style="font:7pt 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span>Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3, time permitting:
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing</a>
</p><p></p><p></p>
<ol type="1" style="margin-top:0in;" start="3"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#000000;">AOB<p></p></li></ol><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email </span><a title="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org">gnso-secs@icann.org</a><span style="color:#000000;">.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Kind regards,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julie</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<br /><hr /><font color="#808080" face="Arial" 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>
</blockquote></body></html>