<html><head>
<style type="text/css"><!--#x1d89301a2bf5480 p.MsoNormal
{margin: 0cm; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;}
#x1d89301a2bf5480 a:link
{color: rgb(5, 99, 193); text-decoration: underline;}
#x1d89301a2bf5480 div.WordSection1
{page: WordSection1;}
#x1d89301a2bf5480 ol
{margin-bottom: 0cm;}
--></style><style id="css_styles" type="text/css"><!--blockquote.cite { margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc }
blockquote.cite2 {margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc; margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 0px; }
a img { border: 0px; }
li[style='text-align: center;'], li[style='text-align: center; '], li[style='text-align: right;'], li[style='text-align: right; '] { list-style-position: inside;}
body { font-family: 'Segoe UI'; font-size: 12pt; }
.quote { margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; border-left: 5px #ebebeb solid; padding-left: 0.3em; }
--></style>
</head>
<body><div>Thanks Lars for these questions. I provide these answers in my own personal capacity based on my in depth understanding about the SubPro Recommendations and PDP.</div><div><br /></div><div> First, I believe we must also consider that changes or new proposals not only impact ICANN Org and the GNSO Council, but rather can potentially have significant impacts on Applicants and members of the community that participate in the various processes such as commenters, objectors, etc. </div><div><br /></div><div>I have no issue with combining numbers 2 and 3 provided that ICANN follows the standard set forth in c, and not the standard set forth in b of Annex E. Though both (b) and (c) require collaboration with the SPIRT, New Processes and/or significant changes to Internal Processes (c), require <u>agreement</u> on changes whereas (b) does not require. In other words, if you combine them both into one category, then <u>agreement of the SPIRT to implement any of the changes or new processes will be required.</u> You cant take the lower standard of only collaboration (in b) and use that as the new standard for (c). That is a material difference.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am still looking at the combination of 4 and 5.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div><br /></div><div>Jeff</div>
<div><br /></div><div id="signature_old" style="clear:both"><div><br /></div><img src="cid:em82501611-8fec-43ea-998b-193688ab0ff8@43c21aec.com" border="0" /></div><div style="clear:both"><br /></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>
<div>------ Original Message ------</div>
<div>From "Lars Hoffmann" <<a href="mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org">lars.hoffmann@icann.org</a>></div>
<div>To "<a href="mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org">subpro-irt@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org">subpro-irt@icann.org</a>></div>
<div>Date 6/22/2023 7:56:31 AM</div>
<div>Subject [SubPro-IRT] On Predicabilty</div></div><div><br /></div>
<div id="x1d89301a2bf5480" style="word-wrap:break-word"><blockquote cite="2DFC0BF5-0570-4982-A2A2-50B537DE48A9@icann.org" type="cite" class="cite2">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear IRT members, <o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In drafting the text for the Predictability framework, we would you to confirm
</span>our understanding of Annex E and our approach to implementing the categories of operational and policy issues
<span lang="EN-US">– per our questions contained in the text below. Please note, we also
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wuq5GgdaeM5pyIpd_I4WEUfUk10NgVEgk1b5P_Ax47U/edit?usp=sharing">
uploaded the question to the IRT’s google drive</a> (with only the comment function enabled).<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">If you cannot access the document, please contact document:
<a href="mailto:nextround_policyimplementation@icann.org">nextround_policyimplementation@icann.org</a>.
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">We are looking forward to hearing back on this issues.<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Best wishes,<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Lars<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">Dear IRT members, <o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">In developing the Predictability Framework we would like to propose to make the Framework as efficient and transparent as possible. As a reminder, the intent of the Framework is to ensure that there is transparency
and predictability about any changes that are made to the next round of the New gTLD Program (the Program) after it is launched. To this end, we ask that you confirm our understanding of Annex E and our approach to implementing the categories of operational
and policy issues.
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">Annex E of the <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf"><span style="color:#1155CC">Final Report</span></a>
provides three categories of operational issues and two categories of policy issues:<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm;padding-inline-start:48px" start="1" type="1">
<li style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;vertical-align:baseline">
Minor operational issue<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></li><li style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;vertical-align:baseline">
Non-minor operational issue<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></li><li style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;vertical-align:baseline">
New operational process or significant operational issue<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></li><li style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;vertical-align:baseline">
Changes that may have a policy implication<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></li><li style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;vertical-align:baseline">
New proposals that have have policy implication<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">To make the Framework more transparent and efficient, we propose (A) to combine categories 2 and 3 because regardless of whether an issue is identified as “non-minor” or a “new operational process or significant
operational issue”, ICANN must consult the SPIRT and SPIRT has the option to collaborate with ICANN.
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">We also propose (B) to combine categories 4 and 5 because in both categories the Council either determines that policy work is required or that, in fact, the issue requires an operational solution, which would
move it automatically into one of the operational categories.
<br />
<br />
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm;text-indent:0cm;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2;vertical-align:baseline">
A.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";">
</span>Rationale for combining categories 2 and 3<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">The main procedural difference between category 1 and categories 2 and 3 is, according to Annex E, that the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT) has the option to collaborate on solutions
with ICANN org on issues that fall within categories 2 and 3.
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">The difference between categories 2 and 3 is that in category 3, the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board can ‘initiate action’.<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">It is our understanding that any issue that requires Council action is by definition a policy issue that requires a change to (or new) policy and would thus make it an issue that must fall into the ‘policy’ category.<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">The ability of the Board to act is unaffected by the Framework. <o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">Therefore, we propose to reduce the categories of operational issues to minor and non-minor, with the procedural distinction that the latter gives SPIRT the option to collaborate with ICANN org on the solution.<br />
<br />
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="2" type="A">
<li style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3;vertical-align:baseline">
Regarding the operational issues:<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">We understand that the Council has only two tools to develop policies: a PDP or an EPDP. With regard to the impact on the Program, whether the GNSO amends existing policy or develops new policy, only a PDP or
EPDP can achieve this. We also note in this context that the Council had previously confirmed to the ODP that policy changes can only affect subsequent rounds, never the current one.
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">If the SPIRT refers an issue to the Council because it or ICANN believes that a policy change may be required, and the Council determines that no policy change is required, then ICANN org will address the issue
via an operational change, in accordance with the Framework. Therefore, we propose to combine categories 4 and 5 into one category of ‘changes that require policy development’.
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin:0cm">ICANN org believes that this approach is consistent with recommendation 2.1 that “ICANN must establish predictable, transparent, and fair processes and procedures for managing issues that arise in the New gTLD
Program after the Applicant Guidebook is approved which may result in changes to the Program and its supporting processes.” ICANN org has used the predictability framework outlined in Annex E to the Final Report as its guidance in proposing this approach to
implement the framework with the goal of predictability in mitigating issues.
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br />
<br />
<br />
<o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><o:p xmlns:o="#unknown"> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</body></html>