[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 January 2020

Wed Jan 8 09:48:35 UTC 2020

++1 I concur Anne

Poncelet

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 22:57, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:

> Thanks for these notes.  Regarding the Action Item to distribute 3.6 of
> the Working Group guidelines re stating a rationale when Consensus is not
> achieved, I assume this provision will also cover the option for Minority
> Statements.  If for any reason 3.6 does not cover that option, I would ask
> that Leadership circulate the language from the WG guidelines that does
> cover Minority Statements.
>
>
>
> Just can’t remember the specifics here.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Emily Barabas
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:40 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures PDP WG - 7 January 2020
>
>
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Please see below the notes from the meeting on 7 January 2020. *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/2020-01-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP
>
>
>
> As a follow-up to the first action item below, the Working Group discussed
> the principle that the SPIRT should be able to provide input regardless of
> the level of consensus achieved on recommendations. A Working Group member
> raised on the call that a rationale should accompany the different
> perspectives within the SPIRT when there is a division of opinion within
> the group. Working Group members are encouraged to review the Standard
> Methodology for Making Decisions in Section 3.6 of the Working Group
> Guidelines to see if there is sufficient guidance in Section 3.6 about
> documenting the rationale supporting different views. Section 3.6 is
> available on page 8 of the WG Guidelines:
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Emily
>
>
>
> *Notes and Action Items:*
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Leadership will circulate Section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines
> to so that the group can review if it adequately addresses providing a
> rationale when opinion is divided and there is not consensus.*
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Throughout the document, change “raised” an issue with the
> SPIRT to “forwarded.”*
>
>
>
> *Notes*
>
>
>
> 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest
>
> -          No updates to SOIs
>
>
>
> 2. Work Plan
>
> -          This will be discussed at a high level today. A more detailed
> work plan will be available at the end of this week or beginning of next
> week.
>
> -          Original plan was to hold a public comment period at the
> beginning of this year, with delivery of the Final Report by the end of Q1.
> This plan will need to be revised.
>
> -          Documents are under development on each of the topics in this
> PDP, narrowly focused on areas of agreement with the intent to reach draft
> final recommendations.
>
> -          We will have another public comment period. The leadership
> team has been discussing how to structure this in line with feedback
> received.
>
> -          Leadership team recommends making all draft recs available
> during the public comment period, but seeking feedback on specific areas
> that have not been out for public comment previously. We can’t stop people
> from making comments on other areas, but we will make clear that the focus
> will be on topics for which we are seeking input.
>
> -          In one of the upcoming meetings, we will go over one of the
> recommendations documents drafted on one of the “easier” topics so everyone
> can review approach and format that will put forward for public comment.
>
> -          Question – if the WG gets feedback from Board, GAC, SSAC or
> other groups on sections of the Report that we don’t request feedback on,
> what are we going to do with that? The input could be important and
> valuable and we don’t want to disenfranchise anyone.
>
> -          Answer – We will need to make a judgment call in these cases
> and determine whether the input needs to go through another layer of
> analysis.
>
> -          Auction Proceeds Proposed Final Report – this went out for
> public comment recently. There were three specific questions that
> commenters were asked to focus on, but people can provide comments on other
> topics as well. This might be a model to use for SubPro.
>
> -          Question – how do we distinguish between areas that are new
> and haven’t been covered (and therefore require public comment) and those
> that have not? This sounds subjective.
>
> -          Answer – For example, if the group concludes that we are going
> to do a series of fixed rounds, and someone puts in a comment supporting
> first-come, first-served, we are going to respond that we have already
> considered this and the issue is closed. We don’t want to rehash what has
> already been reviewed where a decision has been made.
>
> -          Some WG members supported making sure that new suggestions and
> ideas are considered.
>
> -          On areas that are new, like the predictability model or if we
> come up with something new for contention resolution, we will ask focused
> questions and encouraging comments.
>
> -          Staff clarification – draft policy recommendations documents
> will not all be discussion papers. Discussion papers have been focused on
> those topics where there needs to be further discussion. For most topics,
> the intention is to develop draft policy recommendations with rationale, as
> well limited text on deliberations focused on issues raised since the last
> public comment. These will follow the format of the WT5 Final Report.
>
> -          Question – Will CCT-RT recs be discussed in the report with
> explanation of how the WG is addressing them?
>
> -          Chart that was reviewed by the group late last year includes
> state of the discussion on each recommendation and also includes SubPro
> topics that are applicable to each recommendation. The CCT-RT recs will be
> addressed in the applicable sections of the final report.
>
> -          As we review draft recommendations, it’s important for
> everyone to review the materials in advance. If there are open issues that
> are not included in the documents, it’s important to raise them on the
> mailing list before the call where the topic will be covered.
>
>
>
> 3. Predictability Framework:
>
> a. Summary Document:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit#heading=h.7kd5yr7uelh2
>
>
>
> -          Review of the issue we are trying to address - How do we
> address changes after the launch of the next round of the New gTLD Program?
> How do we deal with unanticipated issues?
>
> -          Review of policy goals - Regarding when the Predictability
> Framework commences, leadership team believes it should become applicable
> once the AGB is finalized (as opposed to when the application window
> opens), but the WG needs to come to agreement on this.
>
> -          Review of the proposal – recommending the formation of a
> Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team to review potential
> changes to the program.
>
>
>
> b. Proposed Answers to Open Questions:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISHJi7Q/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
>
> -          Review of proposed Role of the SPIRT – staff to correct text
> to note that the SPIRT comes into play after approval of the AGB.
>
> -          Staff note – the WG discussed that existing documents might be
> a basis for materials regarding the SPIRT. This document attempts to pull
> elements from the IRT Guidelines, CSC and PDP charters, and IoT Guidelines
> that might be applicable to the SPIRT.
>
> -          Review of role of the GNSO – Some agreement that the second
> bullet is redundant and can be removed.
>
> -          Review of who can raise an issue to the SPIRT and rationale.
>
> -          Question – does the GNSO Council have a mechanism in which it
> can provide feedback in a rapid fashion?
>
> -          Answer – this will be discussed under the next section: how
> can each of these groups raise an issue? The GNSO may need to tailor some
> of its existing procedures. One of our recommendations could be that they
> develop that.
>
> -          No objections raised to Board and Org having the ability to
> raise issues.
>
> -          Regarding the GNSO Council, there are different options of who
> can raise an issue. This will have an impact on timing.
>
> -          We shouldn’t develop process for the sake of developing
> processes.
>
> -          Comment - There is nothing stopping a PDP or PDP leadership
> team from asking Council for input. This is a good starting point. There is
> no reason for Council not to be able to be nimble in responding. The
> Council Liaison could be a tool that could be more extensively used as well.
>
> -          Response - It might not be that someone from the SPIRT group
> is asking Council for input. It would likely be someone from the community
> raising it to Council, and the issue is raised within Council. The question
> is about what the threshold will be for Council to take up the issue.
>
> -          Some support for the fact that raising an issue within Council
> should be informal and could be raised by a single Councilor. From this
> perspective, voting and a more formal mechanism is appropriate to determine
> how the issue is handled – SPIRT or other process/mechanism.
>
> -          We are starting with the assumption that if the GNSO Council
> wants to send something to the SPIRT team and determining what happens
> next. This is the perspective we are coming from.
>
> -          From one perspective, we would need to state that Council has
> not elected to use other processes. It is important to be clear about
> procedures.
>
> -          For item 5. Suggestion to rephrase the category: “How can each
> of these groups raise an issue to the SPIRT?”
>
> -          There are difficult questions about the mechanism of how
> issues get raised to Council. We need to think about the relationship
> between SG/Cs and Council, Council Members as representatives of the SG/Cs,
> etc. We could suggest an email address where community members can raise
> issues to Council. There is no halfway approach – either you leave it to
> Council to figure out how to handle or you provide a detailed approach
> recommending how Council carries this out.
>
> -          Reminder that the SPIRT is advisory in nature, which may make
> it less political.
>
> -          Concern that allowing one Councilor to send an issue to the
> SPIRT might leave the SPIRT susceptible to lobbying.
>
> -          Suggestion to pick and propose one of the options under
> section 5 and put it out for public comment.
>
> -          Clarification regarding the options available – if a
> Constituency could raise an issue, the IPC alone could raise the issue (for
> example). But if a Stakeholder Group is the minimum threshold, it would
> need to be the whole CSG that is raising the issue to Council.
>
> -          Review of decision-making process of SPIRT – Clarification –
> this group should be able to report its advice regardless of the level of
> support achieved. Text may need clarification. We may not only want to
> report the divisions of perspectives but also the rationales.
>
> -          Leadership believes that this is largely covered in Section
> 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines.
>
> -          This group is different, less formal than at WG. If the SPIRT
> group is divided, it needs to be clear why.
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Leadership will circulate Section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines
> to so that the group can review if it adequately addresses providing a
> rationale when opinion is divided and there is not consensus.*
>
>
>
> -          Section 7 – review of who receives Advice/Guidance issued by
> the SPIRT?
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Throughout the document, change “raised” an issue with the
> SPIRT to “forwarded.”*
>
>
>
> -          Comment regarding section 5 that there should be text that
> processes should be carried out expeditiously.
>
> -          The WG will start with section 8 on the next call.
>
>
>
> c. Process Flow Chart (to be provided)
>
>
>
> -          Item deferred.
>
>
>
> 4. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort (time permitting):
>
>
>
> -          Item deferred.
>
>
>
> 5. AOB
>
> a. Update from meeting of the ICANN Board/Senior ICANN org
> management/SubPro leadership/Council leadership
>
>
>
> -          In attendance: Jeff and Cheryl from SubPro; Goran and Cyrus
> from ICANN org; Keith, Pam, Rafik from Council leadership; Becky and Avri
> from the Board.
>
> -          Board wants to be aware of particularly thorny issues that are
> coming their way and the timing of when issues will reach the Board.
>
> -          The Board will likely be getting more letters from SO/ACs and
> other interested parties, and this is a way of opening up communications
> between the PDP, Org, and Board on handling the issues raised.
>
> -          ICANN org has set up an executive team to start planning
> processes to implement next round.
>
> -          If, for example, the WG expects to put forward a
> recommendation that is in conflict with GAC Advice, the Board will want to
> know this.
>
> -          The goal is to be in closer communication and flag an issues
> in advance.
>
> -          If anything of note comes up on these coordination calls in
> the future, the SubPro Co-Chairs will share with the WG.
>
> -          Board requested current thinking of the WG on the public
> comment period as letters from the GAC and ALAC went to the Board.
> Co-Chairs said that they would talk with the WG and make sure there is
> agreement on the approach and then share this approach with the Board.
>
> -          The purpose is to avoid as many surprises as possible through
> early and regular communication.
>
> -          GAC is interested in learning in advance how SubPro
> recommendations may deviate from their advice. This is not something we
> have started working on but it has been requested.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd

*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>*

*https://www.netfreedompioneers.org/
<https://www.netfreedompioneers.org/>   *

*www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com
<http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200108/5fc67dda/attachment-0001.html>