Thanks Steve, I need a bit more time to consider the “draft assignment form” but appreciate the need for structure and look forward to reviewing and finalizing on the small team’s first call in early January. I would add that we might want to expand this small team a bit if other Council members want to volunteer their perspectives on the ODA. In light of the timing of the Board workshop on the ODA, I have focused on Appendix 19 to the ODA which begins on page 352 and runs through the top of page 368. In my review of this text, I have come up with the following questions for further consideration by the small team as to “Clarifying Questions” that need to be posed to the Org and to the Board regarding Option 2: 1. General Process Outline – page 354 – Stated goals of Option 2 are (1) mitigate the risks of unknown demand and (2) gain efficiencies in implementation timelines. Could the Org please be more specific and simplify conclusions as to how the Option 2 proposal accomplishes these two desired goals? 2. Follow-up to Question 1 – on page 356 Org seems to recommend that (1) String Similarity Review and “Completeness of the Application” Review occur prior to any other application processing. This would appear to increase efficiency. What would be the ramifications? Would processing of “string contention” based on String Similarity Review be delayed as suggested as the top of page 367? Does the Org consider that this proposed delay could be addressed directly by amending the Sub Pro Final Report? 3. Impact of the Proposal – Challenges on page 358 – Option 2 describes processing of batches of 450 applications annually. Does this number differ that significantly from the description in the Final Report which assumed a hypothetical “batch” of 500 applications? Is there some reason that the Org views this proposal as being very different from the Final Report output? 4. Relevant SubPro Final Report Outputs – page 358 – The Org describes the proposed Option 2 as a “significant departure from prior practice” and states that the proposal provides only an “initial overview” of key areas in relation to the Final Report. The text at the top of page 359 states the Org would need to “perform a more detailed review of all SubPro Final Report outputs to identify any other areas that may not be consistent with the outputs to inform further discussion.” If GNSO Council has not been advised of all areas where Option 2 may not be consistent with the Final Report it approved and sent to the Board, how can Council know the next steps we may need to follow and how could the Board approve moving forward based on the ODA? Does the Org envision that Council will need to make revisions to the Final Report via a Supermajority vote as provided in the ByLaws prior to the Board being able to vote on approval of the Final Report and institution of an IRT? 5. Topic 6 – RSP Pre-Evaluation – It is suggested that it may be appropriate to establish one procedure for RSP Pre-evaluation to be conducted in advance of the four years for processing applications described in Option 2. Does the Org consider that closing down the RSP Pre-evaluation process for four years would require changes to the Final Report Recommendation? Would closing down that process for four years be considered to be “anti-competitive” and to favor existing big players in the system? 6. Topic 17 – Applicant Support - page 360 – the Org suggests the possibility of a prior round for Applicant Support applications – giving them priority over general applications and idns. Could this be done consistently with the Sub Pro Final Report Outputs or must Applicant Support applications be thrown in with other applications in the “batch”, subject to the prioritization draw provisions and analyzed for completeness along with all other applications in the batch? This appears to be an important question to be referred to the GGP on Applicant Support. 7. Topic 19 – Application Queuing – Two questions: (A) with respect to the “prioritization draw”, does the org foresee any problems in establishing the proposed draw and has ICANN Legal been consulted regarding this matter? (B) What ratio of priority for idn applications is proposed by the Org given that the Sub Pro Final Report made specific recommendations in regard to the ratio of processing idn applications with priority? 8. Topic 19 – Risk Implications – page 362 – With respect to the Application Fees proposed in Option 2, could the Org please provide a breakdown of the elements in the proposed $240k fee? For example, what portion of that fee is allocated to “dispute resolution”. What portion is assigned to the elements in the Sub Pro Final Report that have been identified by the Org on page 354 in the second paragraph of the “Cyclical Round Design Proposal”? In general, what are the components of the proposed application fee and what is the estimated cost associated with each element in the cost recovery model affirmed by the Working Group? One specific bullet point on page 362 identifies “hiring and managing dozens of staff members in a very short period”. What level of staffing and what time period for hiring to attain the operational capability is anticipated? 9. Timing Implications – page 365 – There is discussion of a need to assemble and implementation team and create a streamlined review of a draft Applicant Guidebook prepared by the Org. Does the Org anticipate that this would occur in a process outside of and prior to coordination with an IRT? What is meant by the need for “streamlined review”? 10. Infrastructure Development Stage – page 365-366. Can the Org be more specific about its projection that “even the smallest IT development option will take approximately 24 months”? 11. Program Foundations – page 366 – A conclusion is stated that the RSP Pre-evaluation Program was “envisioned to require more than three years to develop and begin operations 18 months before the opening of the application Submission Window”. We aren’t certain where these original conclusions were drawn but it appears that the Org is proposing a process that takes 12 months and that pre-evaluation would occur in a six month window prior to the opening of the Application Submission Window. What is the difference in the comparative timelines and how are these efficiencies to be achieved? 12. Other Considerations – page 366 – 367. There is discussion of some possible deferment of certain elements of the Final Report Outputs to “a later time after launch of the application submission period”. One example provided is that of string “contention resolution”. In the opinion of Org, would deferring string contention resolution or other elements of the program, e.g. new elements introduced in the Sub Pro Final Report such as “appeal mechanisms” required additional Policy Guidance work from the GNSO? I’m listing the above as my own questions regarding the description of “Option 2”. I am sure others on the small team may have additional input and/or revisions to the above. With respect to the section on “Other Round Design Alternatives” on page 368, it strikes me that review of that section by the small team might only impeded progress on getting Clarifying Questions to the Board and Org in time for the Board workshop on this topic. Not sure whether others agree… Thank you and Happy Holidays! Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D919F2.FEA8DDC0] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne via council Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 4:32 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Council Small Team - SubPro ODA [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Thanks Steve. We appreciate your efforts to organize us. Will review as soon as possible. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D919F2.FEA8DDC0] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan via council Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 3:02 PM To: Council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:Council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Council Small Team - SubPro ODA [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear Councilors, During the 15 December 2022 Council meeting, you all agreed to initiate a small team<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/2022-2023+GNSO+Counc...> to review the SubPro ODA<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf>. From the Council meeting, we have Jeff Neuman, Anne Aikman-Scalese, Thomas Rickert, and Susan Payne as volunteers for this effort. If any other Councilors (or liaisons) would like to join the small team, please let us know at gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. We are still in the process of identifying a workable time for this small team to meet. Staff, in consultation with leadership, took the liberty of putting together a draft assignment form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/215288194/Small%20Team%20As...> to help guide the work of the small team. While the development of an assignment form is now usual practice for small teams, it is particularly important in this case. Given the short period of time to be able to review the lengthy ODA, have the small team agree on draft input to ICANN Board, allow time for that draft input to be communicated to the Council, and finally deliver it to the Board by ~19 January, the task needs to be as tightly scoped as possible. You will see that the assignment form suggests that Councilors should read the ODA by early January and provides 4 suggested areas for focus when reviewing the ODA (note, these 4 areas of focus are inspired by the SSAD ODA review process). The assignment form also includes a Google doc (and attached as Word for Anne) to help collect any areas of input based on the 4 areas of focus. Please let us know if you have questions but otherwise, happy reviewing. And more importantly, happy holidays! Best, Steve Steven Chan Senior Director, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.
