Hi Anne, I see your response came in before I completed this response. Just noting that I’ve seen it already, but think the response below should still hopefully be helpful.
Hi Anne,
Let me try and answer your question. The SubPro ODP Team has an understanding of how implementation guidance should be treated, which in their words is, “a strongly recommended action and that if in some circumstances
there may be valid reasons not to take such guidance exactly as described, this would remain consistent with the Final Report.” This understanding comes from the Final Report preamble and was reinforced by previous ODP question/answers.
There is specific phrasing for a handful of recommendations where the SubPro ODP Team wants to validate that their understanding of implementation guidance, pasted above, still holds true. The reason they
are asking is because the recommendation language (i.e., “must”) cites the implementation guidance in the recommendation language itself, potentially creating a relationship requirement between the recommendation and embedded implementation guidance. I’ve
highlighted an example of the language that is causing the potential ambiguity, where it can be construed that the implementation guidance in these specific instances, must be fulfilled precisely
“as detailed” in order to meet the requirements of the recommendation.
- Recommendation 17.12: ICANN org must develop a plan for funding the Applicant Support Program, as detailed in the Implementation Guidelines below.
Here is a link to Jeff’s draft responses, where you can see that he validates the SubPro ODP Team understanding of implementation guidance, which holds for these specific recommendations:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18C6Vulnv6V0Akyq3IeehWuSGg1TAHCYJEBGXHrAVRx8/edit?pli=1. As requested, the draft responses are attached in Word.
Hopefully this provides a bit of clarity and I certainly welcome Jeff, as well as Councilors, to weigh in.
Best,
Steve
From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Aikman-Scalese, Anne via Gnso-chairs" <gnso-chairs@icann.org>
Reply-To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lewisroca.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 9:04 AM
To: "Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy>, "COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <council@gnso.icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>
Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Subject: Re: [gnso-chairs] Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set #6
Thanks Sebastien. JEFF – I am a bit confused by the examples presented in Question Set 6 from the Sub Pro ODP team. The examples are all labelled “Recommendation” and all include the word “must” which has
a defined meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report. The Implementation Guidance does not generally include the word “must”. That word was used consistently in connection with Recommendations and Question Set 6 appears to be reciting “must” Recommendations but
treating them as Implementation Guidance.
Could you please clarify the question being asked in Question Set 6? (I have previously volunteered to join that Sub Pro small team.)
Thank you,
Anne
|
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese |
|
Of Counsel |
|
|
|
D. 520.629.4428 |
|
|
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>
On Behalf Of Sebastien--- via council
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 3:10 AM
To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>
Subject: [council] FW: Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set #6
[EXTERNAL]
Dear Council Colleagues,
Please find below our Council Liaison to the SubPro ODP’s latest updates.
Thank you Jeff for providing these. Please review them ahead of our meeting on 17 November (or 16 depending on time zones).
Kindly,
Sebastien Ducos
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
+33612284445
France & Australia
From:
Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Date: Thursday, 10 November 2022 at 10:30 pm
To: john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com>,
dibiase@amazon.com <dibiase@amazon.com>, Sebastien Ducos <sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, SubPro ODP Mailman List <subpro-odp@icann.org>
Subject: Update on SubPro ODP and Policy Question Set #6
Caution:
This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails
to isitbad@.
Dear Council Leadership,
Can you please post this on the GNSO Council List?
This afternoon I had my November call with the ICANN Org SubPro Team led by Karen Lentz. Here is the latest update:
- On Schedule. During that call, ICANN org confirmed that they are in fact on schedule to deliver the Operational
Design Assessment the week of December 12th. The team met its deadline for “pens down” which was yesterday and the document is undergoing internal review. In addition, they are working on an executive summary.
- Updated Assumptions. On November 8th, ICANN posted a new Assumptions document (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-assumptions-subsequent-procedures-odp-08nov22-en.pdf
[nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]) which contains all of the previous assumptions (in grey) as well some new ones (not in grey).
- GNSO Council Briefing on ODA. The ICANN org ODP team would like to set up a call with the Council the week
of December 5th to give the Council a preview of the assessment like they did for the SSAD ODA. They will also go over their expectations on timing, and an input mechanism for feedback on the ODA. Like the SSAD ODA, there will not be a formal
public comment period, but there may be opportunities for Q&A and potentially providing our own input to the Board.
- Community Webinar on ODA. After the ODA is released the week of the 12th, ICANN is planning
on conducting a webinar for the community to discuss the assessment. It will be open to anyone interested in the program.
- Final (?) Question Set. The ICANN SubPro ODP Team has posted an additional question that they would like
us to respond to regarding the role of Implementation Guidance where a Recommendation incorporates by reference such Implementation guidance. They have confirmed that the ODA release is not dependent on the timing of our response to Question Set 6 provided
that their view in that question is consistent with ours (which I believe is). I have copied the question and am working on a proposed response in the following Google Document.
- Council SPS Planning. We discussed other activities that will need to occur after the ODA is delivered
to the Board including the commencement of two (2) IRPs once the ICANN Board approves the recommendations. The Final Report Recommendations include one IRT for Applicant Support and a second IRT for everything else. We believe it is a good idea to discuss
this at the Council SPS in December which involves a discussion of the work in the coming year for the Council.
Please let me know if you have any questions or you would like me to go over any of this as AOB during the Council meeting on the 17th.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Neuman
GNSO Liaison to SubPro
|
|
Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 http://jjnsolutions.com
[nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] |
From: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 2:53 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; SubPro ODP Mailman List <subpro-odp@icann.org>
Subject: Policy Question Set #6
Hi Jeff,
It was great connecting on today’s call to discuss the latest ODP-related developments. As noted, we recently drafted a new Policy Question Set (#6) focused on the topic of Implementation Guidance that I am
attaching to this email.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have questions or need any clarification.
Thank you!
Best,
Michael
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.