[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 May 1500 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting on 11 May at 1500 UTC. 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/2020-05-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP.

Kind regards,
Julie

Notes and Action Items:

Actions:

ACTION ITEM: Change to “[Only] the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org may identify [initiate action on an issue]..” -- change throughout where this text occurs.
ACTION ITEM: Make sure we deal with disagreements as to classification.
ACTION ITEM: Add in brackets the 4 examples to category c.
ACTION ITEM: Add in brackets to the process for 1a and 1b: "but shall nevertheless be reported on subsequent to their implementation".
ACTION ITEM: Consider changing the title for Section 3.

Notes:

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

2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing

Annex - Predictability Framework, page 4

Discussion:

-- Question: What do we mean by “which may result in changes to the Program and its supporting processes”? Answer: The overview is meant to be general.  The process depends on the issue that comes up.  This is a process, not an outcome.
-- This section is an attempt to minimize the impact of the things we didn’t predict.
-- Question: Re: “The category will assist…” who will it assist?  The SPIRT? Answer: These are meant to be guidelines for the community.
-- The SPIRT may not be the one to address the issues that are identified.
-- Question: For 1a and 1b should we say that these should not trigger the SPIRT?  At the least 1a and 1b should be reported publicly. Answer: It would be odd to mention the SPIRT here as it hasn’t been introduced yet.
-- Re: Operational: Changes to ICANN Organization Internal Processes -- can we have guardrails? That ICANN Org can’t introduce delays.
-- What is the recourse of impacted applicant or community members to appeal against a 1b issue?
-- The question is whether the change will have an impact on applicants.  Non-minor changes that have impact will need to have community oversight.
-- Re: “Operational - Non-Minor: Description: These are changes to ICANN Org’s internal processes that have (or are likely to have) a material effect on applicants or other community members.”
-- Need the SPIRT to help determine what is implementation and what is policy.
-- Question: So the recourse for an impacted applicant or community members against a 1b issue is to appeal to GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org on classification of the issue as a 1b issue?
-- If we have any of these outcomes they would fall into category c: Operational - New Process:
1.  Cannot suspend round; 2.  Cannot delay more than 30 days;  3.  cannot target specific;  
4.  Cannot delay future rounds
-- But the guardrails exist in the structure, not in trying to enumerate every example.
-- Question: Can we add "but shall nevertheless be reported on subsequent to their implementation" to the "Process" for 1a and 1b?

ACTION ITEM: Change to “[Only] the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org may identify [initiate action on an issue]..” -- change throughout where this text occurs.
ACTION ITEM: Make sure we deal with disagreements as to classification.
ACTION ITEM: Add in brackets the 4 examples to category c.
ACTION ITEM: Add in brackets to the process for 1a and 1b: "but shall nevertheless be reported on subsequent to their implementation".

3. Possible Policy Level New Proposals

-- Those examples seem to be pure policy, so why are they going to the SPIRT?  Answer: It may not be clear so the SPIRT may need to help determine.
-- If it is clear policy then it should go only to Council, not to the SPIRT.
-- Might be a problem of examples -- the idea was to get the SPIRT involved to determine if it involves policy.  If it doesn’t then the Council doesn’t need to be involved, if it is clearly policy then it does.  Think of examples on the edge of being policy or not.
-- SPIRT doesn’t make recommendations but helps to make determinations.  It is “screening”.
-- Include the concept of screening in this text: “Process: If the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org identify an issue that they believe to be in this category, the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed.”
-- Something that is clearly policy it should not be referred to the SPIRT.  Only cases where Council is seeking guidance on whether it is policy or implementation.
-- Should not assume that the Council will refer policy issues to the SPIRT to solve.  It will be things that are unclear as to whether they are policy or implementation.
-- May need to re-title section 3.
-- Take this up again two calls from now.

ACTION ITEM: Consider changing the title for Section 3.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200511/7aac3d61/attachment-0001.html>