[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019

[Jeff Neuman]

Please see my comments in ​red below.


From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>



[Anne] Initial Report and Public Comment. 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.


[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".


Why would that not solve the issue?



[Anne] Effect on Existing GNSO Procedures and ICANN ByLaws.  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.


[Jeff]  Applying the same language above would fix all of this. We are not modifying any existing process.



[Anne] Prior Work of the Policy and Implementation WG.  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.



​[Jeff]  I know this has been your argument all along, but the documentation does not support your view.  See https://www.icann.org/policy/implementation and https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf.  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.


[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.


[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.



[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.


[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.


Lets see what others in the group think.



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>
www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/>

[cid:e7ffb128-9fe6-4e6f-ba6b-b1a17b0dae7f]

________________________________
From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 5:36 PM
To: Julie Hedlund; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Cc: Jeff Neuman
Subject: RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019


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:



Initial Report and Public Comment. 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.



Effect on Existing GNSO Procedures and ICANN ByLaws.  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.



Prior Work of the Policy and Implementation WG.  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.



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.



Anne





Anne E. Aikman-Scalese


Of Counsel


520.629.4428 office


520.879.4725 fax


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


_____________________________


[cid:image003.png at 01D4FF62.117141E0]


Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP


One South Church Avenue, Suite 700


Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611


lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>











From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:38 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019



[EXTERNAL]

________________________________

Dear Working Group members,



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: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.



Please also see the referenced document at:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing.



Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director



Notes and Action Items:



Action Items:

-- Staff will check on the ICANN Board response to the GAC advice in the Helsinki Communique’ on new gTLDs.

-- WG to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”.  Maybe “Post Application Advisory Team”.



Notes:



1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.



2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit?usp=sharing)



2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures



Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish

-- First bullet: replace “rounds” with “procedures”.



2.2.1.c.1: The Working Group recommends no changes to the existing policy calling for subsequent application rounds introduced in an ongoing, orderly, timely and predictable manner.

-- Support from most commenters



New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations:

-- 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.

-- WG is taking into consideration the CCT-RT recommendations.



Discussion:

-- Policy does not have a demand component.

-- Action Item: Board response to GAC Advice in the Helskinki Communique’.

-- Note that the CCT-RT did have an economic study done by the Analysis Group, although perhaps not a full cost-benefit analysis.

-- Concerns with maintaining the current policy unless there are objections.

-- Unless there is a consensus on changing precedent we should stay on the same path.

-- Can build on what we have learned, but hard to do analysis on what people might want.

-- If the WG wants to request for an assessment to be done that will have to be approved by the Council.

-- 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.

-- We have some qualifications from the GAC.



2.2.1.e.1: 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?

-- Support from most commenters.



New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: ALAC, BRG, BC, RySG – New Ideas



Discussion:

-- Good proposals for different types of metrics.

-- Need to define what we mean by success; CCT-RT referred that issue to the SubPro WG.

-- Questions and issues in the CCT-RT could put some of these issues to rest.

-- 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.

-- Good conversation to continue on email.

-- 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.



2.2.2 Predictability



-- Support from most commenters

-- 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.



New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations -- ICANN Org: Concerns/New Ideas



Discussion:

-- Can things in the model be improved so that you can support it?  If not, what takes its place?

-- Don’t think it’s in our authority to replace the GNSO policy process.

-- We're not changing any of the policies or processes that have been established.

-- 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.

-- Need to be more conscious of the need for predictability for third party interests.  We use the term “affected parties” for that reason.

-- WG needs to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”.  Maybe a Post Application Advisory Team.



________________________________

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://comlaude.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190501/4b034c6b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6526 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190501/4b034c6b/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-otem0fmv.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7567 bytes
Desc: Outlook-otem0fmv.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190501/4b034c6b/Outlook-otem0fmv-0001.jpg>