Hi Susan,According to AGB "Policy changes for ongoing rounds would only occur in extraordinary circumstances where the Program’s continuation is at risk if the change were not executed. If a policy change is necessary, the Board, ICANN org, and the GNSO Council in consultation with the SPIRT will identify an appropriate solution that secures the Program’s continuation and establishes a suitable implementation process.8. Any collaboration between the Council and the SPIRT in this context is outside this Framework and is governed by the SPIRT Charter."So SPIRT shouldn't really be able to bring policy change proposals single handedly. And that’s not how I read the charter.As to the motion ... I feel like this is a premature motion. The process needs to be discussed before we actually have a motion. But I can bring my concerns as amendments:My concern is that the current process does not clearly distinguish between:
identifying and characterizing an issue;
deliberating operational impacts;
anddeveloping substantive remediation pathways that may themselves implicate policy considerations.
For example, an issue may initially appear operational, but the eventual proposed solution may no longer fit neatly within a Type 2 framework. That is why I think the motion should more clearly provide that:
issue alerts are intended to identify and characterize issues rather than embed proposed solutions at the alert stage; (this was even raised during the meeting last SPIRT had)
SPIRT alerts should come from SPIRT and not just a member or a stakeholder, the alert should include areas of agreement and disagreement within SPIRT regarding characterization and escalation;
urgency should remain subject to Council determination on a case-by-case basis;
andif, during deliberations, SPIRT or the council determine that either the issue itself or the proposed remediation pathway may constitute a Policy Change under the Predictability Framework, the matter should immediately return to Council for further consideration consistent with the SPIRT Charter and Predictability Framework.
And this part is not in the process: At all times, SPIRT should bring the outcome of the process and the solution to the council for review and approval.
I do not think these clarifications undermine the role of SPIRT or the Predictability Framework. Rather, they help preserve the distinction between operational deliberation and policy development that the Framework itself is trying to maintain.
_______________________________________________FarzanehOn Mon, May 11, 2026 at 4:16 PM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> wrote:_______________________________________________Hello all,
We have updated the motion wiki page with the **Friendly amendment submitted by Anne Aikman-Scalese and accepted by Lawrence Olawale-Roberts.
https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/kgA3J
@Anne, please let us know if you would like to second what is proposed.
All the best,
Terri
From: "Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council" <council@icann.org>
Reply-To: "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>
Date: Monday, May 11, 2026 at 3:04 PM
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, GNSO council <council@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Council Motion for SPIRT Alerts
Dear Susan and Anne,
Thank you for your inputs and contribution to the subject matter.
@Susan your submission is spot on and am sure it provides some further clarity. where the Council adopts a 7 day timeframe in providing its consent over referring an issue to SPIRT, on a case-by-case basis I am hopeful the Council can beat this deadline in providing its conscent where needed.
@ Anne i consider your first two proposals friendly and have gone ahead to update the motion before the Council in line with your suggestions - That the time for a consent be extended to 7 days and that Council leadership make the call for an objection.
Motion:
On your third request, the SPIRT charter explicitly recommends they come back to council on an issue that revolves around developing new policy (Type 3 Process)- Note that the SPIRT is a team of experts that are deemed to have the required competence to work along ICANN Org. In resolving any Type 2 issue that may arise. Mandating that they revert back to council at every point a decision needs to be made nullifies the intent behind how they are currently chatered, saddles the council with the same task they are to resolve and i believe isn’t the spirt behind the Predictability framework. I would urge that the council aligns with the PF and SPIRT Charther.
Hopefully, this gets us all moving towards a consensus on the issue.
Lawrence.
-----
Lawrence Olawale-Roberts
Global President & Managing Director
Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97
Lawrence@microboss.org
…collaboration to enhance communication.
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it,
use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss.
Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 5:44:15 PM
To: GNSO council <council@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Council Motion for SPIRT Alerts
Thanks to Lawrence for bringing this to Council in his capacity as the liaison to the SPIRT, and to Anne and Farzi for their comments.
I wanted to just make a couple of comments, for the benefit of Councillors, particularly those who perhaps are not so familiar with the detail as yet.
As a reminder, the SPIRT operates under the oversight of Council. Where an issue comes to the attention of the SPIRT which may require a change to the New gTLD Program, the SPIRT cannot consider that issue of its own volition, since the SPIRT cannot refer an issue to itself. Council may refer the issue to the SPIRT, however, and ask the SPIRT to look at it. What we are doing here is trying to set out a process for how that happens, including some timing expectations since such issues may be quite time-sensitive.
Under the SPIRT Charter, the first task of the SPIRT is to determine whether the issue can be resolved in a manner that is consistent with existing policy recommendations. If SPIRT concludes that it cannot (in other words, that a policy change would be needed), then the SPIRT is already required under its Charter to confer with the Council on a path forward. But, with an issue that the SPIRT is aware of (but which has not been referred to it) it cannot even make that assessment because it is not empowered to act. By this process, Council will only be giving the SPIRT permission to evaluate the issue, we are not signing off on a proposed solution.
Nothing in this process supersedes the SPIRT Charter. It is merely a pathway that allows the SPIRT to put something on Council’s radar and get permission from Council to look at it.
I hope that we can work collaboratively to agree a timeline that allows Councillors time to confer with their groups, and allows the SPIRT to be put to work, where appropriate, as quickly as possible in time-sensitive situations. Input from others on what that timing might be – whether 72 hours, 7 days, or other – would be welcome.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Com Laude
T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
D +44 (0) 20 74218 255
Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io] and Youtube [t-uk.xink.io]
From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: 11 May 2026 15:51
To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>
Cc: GNSO council <council@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Re: GNSO Council Motion for SPIRT Alerts
Thank you, Terri. For consideration by Lawrence as the maker of the Motion, I would propose a friendly amendment (specifically in relation to the time sensitive issues raised by SPIRT) along the following lines:
- 7 day non-objection period yields consent (rather than 72 hours) and all Councilors are copied (gives some time for Councilors to consult SGs and Cs if needed.)
- Council Leadership has the Objection authority if needed (Councilors provide input to Leadership and lets them call it.)
- SPIRT agrees to make recommendation back to Council before proceeding to resolve the issue
If accepted by Lawrence, I am prepared to second the Motion.
Anne
On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 6:31 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
This motion has been added on the wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/kgA3J [icann-community.atlassian.net]
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
Policy Team Supporting the GNSO
From: "Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council" <council@icann.org>
Reply-To: "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>
Date: Saturday, May 9, 2026 at 6:26 AM
To: GNSO council <council@icann.org>
Subject: [council] GNSO Council Motion for SPIRT Alerts
Dear Councilors,
I submit for your approval and secondment a motion for the GNSO Council Consideration of SPIRT Alert Request process at our meeting for the 21st May, 2026.
Motion:
On Council's approval of the Consideration Request for SPIRT Alerts in the motion above, the SPIRT would like to be permitted by the GNSO Council to discuss a matter on RSP Applications brought before the SPIRT by the Registry Stakeholder Group through a member.
Link to SPIRT Issue Submission Form:
The GNSO Council approval sort aligns with the SPIRT charter and adopted process.
Brief of Issue - RSP APPLICATIONS
The Registry Service Provider (RSP) Handbook sets out the evaluation process for providers seeking qualification to offer services to new generic top-level domain (gTLD) applicants in the New gTLD Program and currently mandates prospective RSP's to attest that all Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extensions they intend to use are registered with IANA in accordance with RFC 7451 and indicate whether they do, or will, refrain from using any EPP extensions that are not registered with IANA pursuant to RFC 7451.
As ICANN agreed to remove the requirement that Registry Operators limit their use to EPP extensions reflected in the IANA registry, the RSP Handbook has not updated to reflect this change and as a result, pre-evaluated RSPs are still required to commit to using only IANA-registered EPP extensions in order to pass evaluation. Thus RSPs must make commitments that their Registry Operators are no longer required to make under the Base Registry Agreement. Accordingly, the RySG requests that SPIRT and ICANN org consider revising the RSP Handbook to align it with the Base Registry Agreement.
-----
Lawrence Olawale-Roberts
Global President & Managing Director
Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97
Lawrence@microboss.org
…collaboration to enhance communication.
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 Com Laude Group Limited (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 is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. 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 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]
council mailing list -- council@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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.
council mailing list -- council@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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.