[Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Follow up from May 6th and CALL FOR SMALL GROUP

Tue May 7 08:56:44 UTC 2019

All,

Following up on the call yesterday, we have revised the document on the Proposed New Predictability Model.  You can find it here:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit?usp=sharing.  The comments made during the call should be incorporated either as revised language itself, or as “comments” for draft language to be created.

As we discussed, we would like to have a smaller group dedicated to working through the issues that remain on this topic so that a more comprehensive proposal can be presented to the full working group at a later date on the Predictability Framework. The group is open to any current Working Group members.  However, if you join the small group, you are expected to put in some time to try and resolve whatever issues remain.  The small group MAY have a call or two, but the hope is that all of the work can be done in e-mail and through the documents itself.  We will create a mailing list to work on these issues.  This is NOT a formal group.

So far, I think we captured the following people to be on this group (from the call last night):

Jeff Neuman
Cheryl-Langdon Orr
Kathy Kleiman
Christopher Wilkinson
Kristina Rosette

There may have been others that already volunteered, but may not have captured, so please indicate your interest to us if you want to be a part of the smaller team.

We will not be doing formal consensus calls as part of this smaller group, but rather just making the proposal better and filling in the holes to present to the full working group.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600
Mclean , VA 22102
UNITED STATES
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079

CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of orders.  To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter.  In this case, please contact your client manager or admin at comlaude.com for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed.  Thank you.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 11:40 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 06 May 2019

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 06 May 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/2019-05-06+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Please also see the referenced documents 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:

ACTION ITEM 1: Staff to incorporate edits as discussed into the 2.2.2 Predictability document.
ACTION ITEM 2: Gather a small group to further develop the 2.2.2 Predictability document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit#heading=h.8vi2q2obcb8w.  Jeff will send out a call for volunteers to the list.  Volunteers thus far: Kristina Rosette, Kathy Kleiman and Christopher Wilkinson.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.

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

a. Continued: 2.2.2 Predictability / 2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process: See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit#heading=h.8vi2q2obcb8w

-- Note: If we don’t come to consensus on a topic then the status quo will be as it was implemented in 2012.  On the record that some do not support that approach.
-- There are some different things relating to IRTs that could be new.

2.2.2 Predictability:
-- Added bullet: The Predictability Model complements the existing GNSO processes and procedures and shall not in any way operate to be a substitute or replacement for those.  In fact, they are incorporated into the Predictability Framework explicitly.

Discussion:
-- “they” references existing processes and procedures.
-- To avoid any doubt in future we might want to add, “In the event of a conflict, existing GNSO processes and procedures take precedent.”
-- Change from “shall not in any way operate to be” to “is not intended to be”.

What are we proposing:

B. Changes to ICANN Organization Internal Processes

Discussion:
-- Comfortable that we have a distinction for minor changes.
-- For the first bullet under (b) -- re: “anything visible” -- what does that encompass?  Add “change the application or any of the other processes set forth in the applicant guidebook”.  Or “those parts of the application that are scored”?
-- Third bullet -- New processes: Some examples have direct relevance for the entire community.  Such as a new public comment platform.
-- Standing IRT decides what is implementation or policy -- but some WG members disagree.
-- Change to “Material adverse impact”?
-- Second bullet -- “all non-minor changes” -- in written policy? Answer: The output of this whole thing will eventually be the AGB and if there are changes to the AGB they would be written.
-- So not a reasonable response that a process will just take longer -- just being a communication.  Seems like there should be more accountability.  Add a comment/note to see if that falls under a different category.
-- Filter out those things that can be dealt with in a practical matter.
-- Third bullet: Need a gateway process before we get to these items.  Wherever something affects the underlying rules has huge implications.
-- Might need to clarify: “New public comment platform” means changes to the tools being used to submit. The rules for commenting is the same, but the platform is different.
-- Second bullet: Not meant to be a change in the timing, but a change in a portal.
-- Add a line after bullet three, “These proposed changes are intended to be only those that involve mechanisms with no substantive impact.”  Question: How is that different from this text, “but rather a New ICANN Organization Internal Process and it is likely to have a materially [adverse] impact on applicants or community members…”  Seems similar in meaning.
-- An example of a change that wouldn’t be substantive but could have a material adverse impact would be requiring that Legal Rights Objections be filed through a proprietary platform instead of email.  Wouldn't affect the substantive LRO (elements, standing, etc), but there may be some potential objectors that, for one reason or another, can't use that platform.
-- Are timelines on filing objections seen as a different type of timeline as a third-party timeline?
-- What might be a minor change for one party could be a major change to others.  Adverse outcomes -- for whom? Should there be a policy gateway to determine?  We don’t have a framework that would be considered to be predictable.
-- If there is a gateway then that could delay any changes.
-- Overriding principle is predictability.  Trying to improve predictability from the last round.

C. Fundamental Possible Policy Level Changes

Discussion:
-- Some examples seem to be out of scope for an IRT.
-- Deciding something that is policy: a standing IRT can raise that issue and the GNSO Liaison can take that back to the Council.  Any Council member also can raise something for consideration at the Council level.
-- So a standing IRT can raise something, but only the Council can decide what is policy or implementation, but it sounds like we are setting up a separate gateway.  The standing IRT cannot be the final arbiter, and the Council also can raise it directly.
-- Add to the bullet point that the standing IRT can make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether something is policy or implementation, but the GNSO will make the final decision.
-- Ensure that this document is cross-referenced to the current policies and processes for IRTs.
-- What do we mean by “Staff will collaborate with the community”?  Answer: That is meant to first go to the standing IRT, which makes a recommendation for additional consideration, and then the GNSO decides how to handle it -- GNSO Input Process, EPDP, etc.
-- Delete this text, “Staff will collaborate with the community to consider the issue and agree upon the mechanism by which the solution will be developed. Options could include:”  And emphasize the point that this is meant to be a community+staff decision, not just staff. Mark them as redlined and to be replaced.  Come back to this in another WG meeting.
-- Helpful to have a workflow diagram for the Predictability Framework once concepts are agreed and reconcile with existing ones from IRT Guidelines.

D. Fundamental Possible Policy Level New Proposals

Discussion:
-- Carry over changes from bullets under C.
-- Reaching out to the community means staff reaching out to the standing IRT.  But don’t think the standing IRT has the authority to decide if something is a policy or implementation change.  Could have a new group that includes members of the IRT, and also Council members, and then decide if it goes to the standing IRT.
-- Want to change what we call this because of previous problems with IRTs.  Want to get the composition right so it is representative of the community.  Meant to ensure that it is a gateway.
-- A number of groups supported the recommendations in the Initial Report but also some dissenting views: ACTION: Form a smaller group to further develop this document for the full WG.  Volunteers thus far: Kristina Rosette, Kathy Kleiman and Christopher Wilkinson.

________________________________
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/20190507/81b4d658/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190507/81b4d658/ATT00001-0001.txt>