[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes

Tue May 26 01:56:06 UTC 2020

	Hi All, 

	I'll second Anne's note that the "language in the middle of the chart
does not seem accurate."  My concern is that that, to paraphrase
Paul, the SPIRT is being treated as a mini-GNSO or even (my words) a
supra-GNSO. I actually think the wording is not to hard to mend -- and
the chart is fixable -- but only with clear qualification (and word
changes) to show what we already agreed after extensive weeks of
discussion: that the SPIRT does not make policy and does not change
the way GNSO policy is made. 

	Right now, by the report and the chart, all roads lead to SPIRT, and
unless the SPIRT opines then nothing happens on policy issues. But
that's not our Multistakeholder process. 

	The idea that all "Issues identified as type C, D and E would
generally speaking be expected to be referred to the SPIRT" [middle
chart, GNSO Council row] can't be right. This is because D and E are
"possible policy level changes." Clearly the GNSO Council can share
issues with the SPIRT -- for insight and input -- but this call for
the GNSO Council to send everything involving gTLDs to SPIRT to
consider first and foremost is misplaced. The GNSO Council can develop
policy issue as it sees fit per its rules - and there are several
possible paths. 

	The hold of the SPIRT over gTLD policy is further confirmed in the
next part of the chart: 

	"However, the GNSO Council may elect to refrain from forwarding an
issue to the SPIRT. A non-exhaustive list includes: 

	- The Council does not agree that the issue requires resolution. 

	- The Council believes an issue is unambiguously a policy issue." 

	==>  All, this is getting close to a "pure policy test."
Specifically, the test seems to be that only if the new gTLD issue is
"purely policy" does the SPIRT not get the first or major word on the
issue.  In our world, however, virtually nothing is purely policy
because we are a technical policy community -- even RPMs (as close to
pure policy as you can get) have considerable technical and
operational elements.  

	That's D and E (see chart below my signature). But even "C" is a
problem -- major operational issues -- "new process [or significant
change to internal processes]" -- can introduce changes and
implications for already-decided policy; these implications may be not
be clear or obvious and, in many cases, should be reviewed widely --
among users and contracted parties. For example, significant changes
to the Trademark Clearinghouse could have enormous intended (and
unintended) implications for policy and impact on the wide and varied
set of users and contracted parties who rely on it.  As many initial
processes were created by the Community, and reviewed by the
Community, so too should changes along the way be evaluated by the
whole community -- that's a GNSO process.  SPIRT may be an input, but
should only be one of many. 

	The Predictability Framework can be fixed; it will take some key
wording change to re-sets the wording to our carefully-negotiated
agreement of some months ago (and not one all agreed to). 

	This way, we can prevent SPIRT from becoming a mini-GNSO or
supra-GNSO. 

	Best, Kathy 

	p.s. from SubPro report text: C, D and E

	C - Operational - new process [or significant change to internal
process]

	D - Possible policy level changes

	E - Possible policy level new proposals

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aikman-Scalese Anne" 
To:"Steve Chan" , "Julie Hedlund" , "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 21 May 2020 19:11:44 +0000
Subject:RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes

	Jeff, Cheryl, Steve et al,

	Regarding the process chart, and as discussed on last night’s call,
the language in the middle of the chart does not seem accurate.  It
says that issues “identified” as fitting in A or B are expected to
be decided by ICANN staff.  The issue raised in the call last night
was who gets to “identify” what bucket the issue falls in.  I see
staff working with the SPIRT to make those recommendations.  SPIRT
may agree with staff that an issue falls into A or B, but Staff should
not itself have the final call if there’s an issue.  In all cases,
buckets A, B, C, D, and E, GNSO Council has the FINAL call.  SPIRT is
there to discuss and try to classify which bucket the issue goes in
and NOT to make policy if it believes that a policy issue is
involved.  It’s not at all workable to have one person on the SPIRT
be able to kick an issue up to GNSO as policy if the majority believe
it can be handled by staff or handled with GNSO Input or Guidance
(rather than through policy-making).  (Remember that any GNSO action
always takes precedence over the SPIRT .)

	This “sorting into buckets” function is why it is so important
for the SPIRT to have members from all parts of the community (which
is supposed to be the case for regular  IRTs as per the section I
pasted in chat last night – see Section C of IRT Recruitment in the
attachment).  It Is clearly NOT working at all to pick and choose
different parts of the IRT Guidelines to try to structure the SPIRT as
we have done in the current draft.    When you do that, you get
“the SPIRT may not be representative” and you leave out
FOUNDATIONAL language like “SPIRT recruiting must be very broad and
invitations should go to all former regular attending members of the
PDP Working Group” which is in Item C of the IRT Guidelines.   For
some reason, the draft we have now says the SPIRT team should include
at least ONE member of the PDP WG.  Why would there be such emphasis
on getting just ONE member of the PDP for this Standing IRT?  And why
do we want to emphasize that the SPIRT may not be representative
rather than emphasizing that recruitment should be broad as shown in
the attached IRT Principles and Guidelines?

	(Last night Paul asked to see the IRT Guidelines.  They are attached
for your consideration before the next call.)

	Donna mentioned that staff runs the IRT process.  The Guidelines for
IRTs state that the staff member is the GDD Project Manager.  Every
IRT appoints among its members a GNSO Council Liaison.  I’m not
sure why we have to call the person heading the SPIRT team a
“Chair”.  What is wrong with GNSO Council Liaison?  THE SPIRIT
DOES NOT DECIDE ANYTHING, IT SHOULD CONSIDER ANY ISSUE WITH STAFF AND
RECOMMEND WHICH BUCKET THE ISSUE BELONGS IN – A, B, C, D, or E. 
Staff should not be telling the SPIRT that something that comes up as
an issue in the implementation phase will not be coming to the SPIRT
because staff believes it fits in A or B.  Staff should be bringing
that issue to the SPIRT to see whether the SPIRT agrees that it is in
Bucket A or B.

	Similarly, Issues that the SPIRT believes fall in C, D, or E, are
opportunities for the SPIRT to identify issues, recommend a method of
resolving, e.g. use GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, GNSO EPDP, or even GNSO
PDP and SEND THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE GNSO COUNCIL.  The SPIRT DOES
NOT MAKE POLICY.  It’s a Standing IRT.  It works with staff to
make recommendations to process issues in an efficient manner within
GNSO guidelines and processes.  All IRT Principles and Guidelines
should apply unless there is a clear reason to deviate and so far, I
don’t see why we are trying to create a different animal when the
Public Comment was – yes, give us a Standing IRT because we know
issues arise at later stages.

	Thank you,

	Anne

	FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg  ON BEHALF OF Steve Chan
SENT: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:07 PM
TO: Julie Hedlund ; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes

	Dear WG Members,

	One of the action items from the 18 May WG call was to develop a
process flow chart to help illustrate how the SPIRT may operate.
Attached, please find a draft prepared by staff and WG leadership.
Note, we try to share documents at a minimum, 24 hours ahead of the
call, but there was a short turnaround between calls in this instance.
Hopefully this document is still helpful to the discussions for the
upcoming call.

	Best.

	Steve

	FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg  on behalf of Julie Hedlund 
DATE: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:46 AM
TO: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org [3]" 
SUBJECT: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes

	Dear all,

	 Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on THURSDAY, 21
MAY 2020 AT 03:00 UTC for 90 MINUTES.

	PROPOSED AGENDA:

	* Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest

	* Discussion of Final Report Topics: 

	 a.       2.2.2 Predictability:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing
[5], start at page 10

	 b.       Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3,
time permitting:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing
[6] 

	* AOB

	If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please
email gnso-secs at icann.org [7].

	Kind regards,

	Julie

-------------------------

 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. 

Links:
------
[1] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
[2] mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org
[3] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
[4] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
[5]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing
[6]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing
[7] mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200525/2cf64c4b/attachment-0001.html>