[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability Framework

Austin, Donna Donna.Austin at team.neustar
Thu Dec 12 22:04:01 UTC 2019

Jeff, I don't think it really matters which way you slice this process they will all create the potential for delays. The line between policy and implementation is very vague which is why I think it makes more sense to have the Council consider the question first rather, because they are the experts on this particular question, as opposed to the SPIRT.

I like Anne's suggestion about how to consider requests from the Board, community vs ICANN org staff and we should think about that some more.

It may be possible for the Council to come up with a mechanism that would respond to concerns about delay and make the consideration process more streamlined.

So I don't think we should reject any suggestion outright at this point and encourage others from the working group to contribute to the discussion.


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 1:52 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability Framework

[cid:image001.gif at 01D5B0F4.5701C420]
Thanks Anne.  I do disagree with this and probably didn't do well explaining why, but I will try again.

The GNSO Council is not intended as a body that can take quick actions.  It is not as if the GNSO Council Chair can get a request and use her or his discretion to forward it to the SPIRT Team.  The Council Chair would have to send it to the rest of the Council.  Then the Council does not have a process where it can approve the forwarding of the request to the SPIRT team immediately.  It would have to take that action at a meeting.  And if the request does not come in within 14 days before a meeting (I may have the number of days wrong), then it cannot be dealt with at that next meeting, but has to be dealt with at the following one or a newly set up extraordinary meeting (which could be up to 40+ days after the request comes in).

Then, if the SPIRT team is just going to discuss and recommend that it is a policy level change and must be dealt with through the GNSO anyway.  So, that process could take at least another 30 days to send it back from where it came.

So, in total now, you could have up to 70 days just to get to the point of sending back the request to the body that initially had the quest.  That is a VERY long time if the request is urgent.

We have to think of the gTLD Program like a business.  It needs to move efficiently.

If something is clearly policy on its face, then it should go straight to the GNSO to deal with.  But most things are never that clear.  And sending it directly to the SPIRT to get its thoughts and recommendations to help the Council and Community is essentially.  The Council can accept/reject those as it sees fit.

Please look out for an email from me in next couple of days with a better explanation about why this is needed.

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:39 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
Subject: Predictability Framework

Hi all,
I think Donna's suggestion to run through GNSO Council if request comes from Board or from Councilor FIRST to determine whether an issue is policy or is implementation and should be addressed by SPIRT makes perfect sense.  (Jeff may disagree with this.)

If issue is raised by staff, it should be reviewed by SPIRT and SPIRT should make a recommendation to GNSO Council as to whether it is policy or implementation.  (Any Council member could challenge and invoke a process that is in the Annexes.  This is true even if SPIRT treats the issue as implementation but someone on Council believes it is policy.)

I still believe it may be prudent to limit requests to the SPIRT team on which it commences work to those coming from either (a) staff or from (b) GNSO Council.  Community members can still give input to the Board, the GNSO Council, and/or staff.  It's just chatter until a written request comes

(a) From the Board to the GNSO Council and from GNSO Council to the SPIRT


(b) from staff to the SPIRT with a recommendation from SPIRT to the GNSO Council.

That would be my view of a possible compromise - not sure Jeff would agree.

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>


[cid:image002.png at 01D5B0F4.5701C420]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611


[cid:image003.jpg at 01D5B0F4.5701C420]

Because what matters

to you, matters to us.(tm)


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.
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 www.comlaude.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com&d=DwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=gpcE7USp9a00C5f8vn1XOR45fvwWSZTeGPh6rj-nUvI&s=nW9z5QOiNKyH2TUSeLts4lrpykNWA5DSGYPhtFPWMZg&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191212/84d96c89/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 70 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191212/84d96c89/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6524 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191212/84d96c89/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2461 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191212/84d96c89/image003-0001.jpg>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list