[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team

Jeff Neuman jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
Fri Mar 29 21:15:23 UTC 2019


Hopefully my answers can clarify a few things.  Answers are in Red below.

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 4:17 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org; Flip Petillion (fpetillion at petillion.law) <fpetillion at petillion.law>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team

Thanks Jeff.  Although your comments and Steve’s are helpful, I am pretty sure the public comments on Standing IRT were based on the notion we all understand as setting up an IRT prior to launch and then continuing that body through the launch process and afterward.   (I would appreciate clarifying comments from others as to their understanding.)  Coming up with another name for the Standing IRT  “post public comment period” does not necessarily make up for that, though it could be helpful in the follow-up public comment period for limited topics.

[Jeff] The Initial Report stated the following recommendations:

“2.2.2.c.1: Currently, as a result of consensus recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board endorsed the GNSO’s Policy and Implementation Recommendations, including those related to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)12 for governing the implementation phase of GNSO policies. If issues arise during this phase, the GNSO could seek to utilize the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process or the GNSO Guidance Process, as defined in the ICANN Bylaws. However, there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that the New gTLD Program, once launched (i.e., after the Implementation Review Team), should be subject to a new Predictability Framework, to address issues that arise regarding the introduction of new gTLDs.

Among other recommendations, the Working Group believes that as part of the Predictability Framework, a Standing Implementation Review Team (IRT) should be constituted after the publication of the Applicant Guidebook to consider changes in the implementation, execution and/or operations of the new gTLD program after its launch, and the introduction of any further evaluation guidelines not available to applicants when applications were submitted. The Predictability Framework is intended to provide guidance to the Standing IRT in how issues should be resolved, which could include recommending that the GNSO Council initiate GNSO processes provided by the ICANN Bylaws”

In addition, in the deliberations section, it states:  “The other noteworthy component of the Predictability Framework that bears mentioning is the potential establishment of a new structure - the Standing Implementation Review Team (IRT). This Standing IRT, which is something that the Working Group sees exclusively as an element of the New gTLD Program, is only to be established after the regular IRT completes its work (i.e., at the time of program launch). The high-level role of the Standing IRT is to help triage issues to determine what mechanisms should be utilized to address the issue. However, the Working Group acknowledges that if this new mechanism is to be established, a number of details will need to be agreed upon, such as:
● Composition of the Standing IRT
○ Number of members
○ Appointment of members
● Length of term of Standing IRT members
● Role of the Standing IRT member (representative vs independent judgement)
● Conflicts of interest procedures
● Confidentiality obligations
● ICANN Staff role and level of participation …..

So based on the fact that we separately discuss the CPIF and the Standing IRT, coupled with the fact that we sought comment on the Standing IRT membership, length of term, etc., we believe that it should have been clear that we were talking about the Standing IRT as separate and in addition to the normal PDP IRT.  If that was not as clear as it could have been, assuming we adopt this Framework, we can make it much more clear.

It would also help a lot if you could explain very simply what you think is “outside the jurisdiction” of the Working Group:

1. Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend to GNSO Council that an IRT be constituted?

[Jeff] I suppose we can recommend anything we want on this subject, but the GNSO Council would not be bound to follow it.

2. Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend IRT involvement with the revised AGB before it is published?  (I think most WG participants would be expecting this involvement.)

[Jeff] I agree that while most of the community would assume that an IRT would be involved in some aspects of the revisions to the AGB, it is outside our scope to make specific recommendations on what a PDP IRT does or does not do; But this is certainly an issue to remind the GNSO Councilors on if you believe it is an issue.

3. . Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend that the IRT be tasked with helping determine which “change requests” should be subject to public comment?  (In that case, we might have to consider the issue of which change requests should require public comment in the Working Group itself.  Here, the IRT solution seems preferable given our timeline.)

[Jeff} I believe the way you have worded the question, yes that would be outside of our jurisdiction.  However, we can achieve similar results by making a recommendation that certain change requests should be subject to public comment including….{List the ones we know of now}, and then state that “additional changes that should go out for public comment may be agreed upon during the implementation process.”

Unfortunately, these questions become necessary since they are basic procedural issues underlying the assumptions made in all of our WG recommendations.    We all need to be on the same page as to how “Implementation Guidance” will be used and whether or not there will be “checks and balances” that normally operate within a system where staff is consulting with a broadly representative IRT prior to launch and during the drafting of the revised AGB.


From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com]
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:50 AM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team


Lets please keep the tone civil on these discussions and not assume that there will be malice on any side.  I think we should expect that everyone will have good intentions in deciding what needs to be done.

All of that said, Steve is correct.  The wording I used was intention to convey that the Council in theory could elect not to constitute an IRT, but I think as past experience has shown (and even for the ePDP), the Council does tend to constitute IRTs and I can’t imagine this circumstance would be any different.  But that is not a decision for this Working Group.

I do agree with Rubens on the point that we may want to come up with another name for what we are now calling the “Standing IRT Panel” because it can easily get confused with the PDP IRT.  Standing Operation Review Panel (SORP) doesn’t sound quite right though not just because of the funny sounding Acronym, but also because it may be looking at non-operational things.  Perhaps something with Advisory in it.  I first thought of TLD Advisory Review Team, but TART is much worse 😊  Perhaps TLD Advisory Panel (TAP)?

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President

Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA

M: +1.202.549.5079
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>

Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:12 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team

Em 28 de mar de 2019, à(s) 20:39:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> escreveu:

I think maybe that if I am a registry or registrar Council member, I just vote “NO IRT” in the Implementation Phase cause that might slow things down.  (let’s get this next round going!)

Isn't that awful when Council members vote based only thinking of their constituencies instead of the greater good ? Guess what, this happened a few weeks ago. And it wasn't done by CPH councillors.

How is it that our Charter permits numerous recommendations for “Implementation Guidance” and permits a recommendation for a standing IRT after launch, but somehow prohibits a recommendation for an IRT during the Implementation Phase?

I believe Steve already covered this.



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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190329/6729d48a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list