Thanks Jeff, You may recall that there was public comment on the Predictability Framework stating that " The language should be amended to make it clear that the role of the SPIRT is not to define a solution, but instead should help determine where an issue needs to be resolved." The IRT staff indicated that this comment was accepted and addressed. However, your view of the role of the SPIRT being involved in developing a temporary solution with respect to a policy matter is not consistent with having addressed that public comment. Both the public comment and page 16 of the Final Report state clearly that the SPIRT should not be developing solutions where the fix that is required involves an upcoming need for a policy change. I'm sure you recall all the deliberations confirming that the SPIRT is not designe or authorized for solutions, but only as a pathway to help classify and determine WHERE an issue should be resolved. You want the SPIRT to be charged in advance in every policy change case with coming up with a solution by working with Org, the Board, and Council. That's not consistent with the Final Report. I am offering a compromise where it is an option for Council to authorize the SPIRT to do that work, though some on the IRT have now expressed the opinion that not even that possibility is consistent with the Sub Pro work. You have always insisted that the SPIRT is about a group of experts who really know what it's like to be an Applicant and that the SPIRT is not intended to be representative even though Steve Chan argued long and hard that it should be representative. I supported your view of the composition of the SPIRT because that is the way the SPIRT was designed under the Final Report. However, it was NOT designed to address policy issues and its non-representative composition makes it ill-suited to address those issues. Nevertheless, my personal point of view is that Council COULD elect to authorize the SPIRT to act in that capacity if Council chooses. (Others in the community may disagree.) Council could also, upon learning of a need for an urgent solution, choose to form a small team with community involvement and representation to develop a solution in the form of a Supplemental Recommendation to address a pressing need that involves policy. Pre-authorization of the SPIRT to address a solution to a policy change issue is inconsistent with the Final Report (p.16) and inconsistent with the public comment. In this respect, both the SPIRT Charter and the Predictability Framework need to be modified. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 6:41 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Elaine,
I apologize for missing yesterday’s meeting as I am on vacation with my extended family for the week. However, I have been in the discussions about this issue with SPIRT charter drafting team.
With the caveat that I was not on the IRT call, and have not listened to the recording yet, so I am not sure how the issue was framed. But I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to Section 3 of the Framework which precedes the Change Execution section that Anne has been commenting on. Section 3 describes the context for the types of changes. More specifically, the types of changes we are talking about fit into the last category of changes, namely,
- A policy change is a change during the ongoing round of the program that, if implemented, would be inconsistent with existing policy recommendations. Therefore, policy changes for ongoing rounds would only occur in extraordinary circumstances where the continuation of the program 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 to secure the continuation of the program as well as an appropriate process to implement it. In this context, any collaboration that may take place between the Council and SPIRT, is outside this framework and a matter for the SPIRT Charter.
Unfortunately flow charts have a habit of abbreviating written descriptions. Re-Reading the chart in the context of Section 3 means the following:
1. A policy change for a current round would only occur in extraordinary circumstances. 2. ICANN would have to demonstrate that the “program is at risk if the change were not executed.” 3. If a change is necessary the Board, ICANN, and the GNSO Council in consultation with the SPIRT will identify the appropriate solution to “secure the continuation of the program as well as an appropriate process to implement it.”
Also, keep in mind that (a) The SPIRT is an open group that anyone can join (albeit at certain time intervals), (b) The SPIRT is subject to Oversight by the GNSO Council, (c) The SPIRT is advisory in nature, and (d) the SPIRT is supposed to contain “experts” in issues involving new gTLDs.
Whereas Anne believes that the SPIRT should only be involved if the Council specifically authorizes it to be involved, why can it not be that the SPIRT is involved unless the Council specifically says it should not be involved? I, for one, propose the later interpretation because the GNSO Council takes several months to authorize anything. And, since this part of the Framework only gets triggered in “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE CONTINUATION OF THE PROGRAM IS AT RISK” and the SPIRT is comprised of the experts, I would prefer the SPIRT having some role by default as opposed to Anne’s interpretation of having no role unless specifically authorized.
In the last round, ICANN made these decisions up on the fly by having all issues go to the ICANN Board. Yes, there was often a public comment period, but very few comments resulted in any changes, and the process could hardly be called collaborative. Decisions came from on high and we were all forced to deal with them. Here, there is a collaboration that involved the Board, Org, the Council and the SPIRT for a “temporary solution” to ensure continuation of the ongoing round which is “at risk”. A more permanent solution for subsequent rounds can only be developed through the normal Policy Development channels.
But that is just my view.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff@jjnsolutions.com ------------------------------ *From:* SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 9, 2024 1:11 PM *To:* anneicanngnso@gmail.com <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; compsoftnet@gmail.com <compsoftnet@gmail.com> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>; greenberg.alan@gmail.com <greenberg.alan@gmail.com>; gnso-spirt-dt@icann.org <gnso-spirt-dt@icann.org>; nitin@data.in < nitin@data.in>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] [council] Re: SPIRT Presentation to Council
Dear All
I also expressed concern on the SubPro IRT call this morning regarding SPIRT taking on a policy making role.
I specifically remember concerns from the GAC about the formulation of the SPIRT becoming a defacto policy making that could skirt the multi-stakeholder model of community engagement in formulated and chartered WGs.
Please revisit the GAC input on this issue as well as the SubPro final report guidance (accepted by the Board) as to the limits of the role of the SPIRT.
Elaine
*From: *Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 8:39 AM *To: *Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet@gmail.com> *Cc: *Nitin Walia <nitin@data.in>, Alan Greenberg < greenberg.alan@gmail.com>, "gnso-spirt-dt@icann.org" < gnso-spirt-dt@icann.org>, "Terri Agnew via cou." <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [council] Re: SPIRT Presentation to Council
*Caution:* This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Peter,
Again, thank you for your feedback on the SPIRT presentation provided in the June Council meeting. By way of further update to my email response below, in the July 8 SPIRT meeting, I raised an issue regarding the recent redline in the Predictability Framework which added the SPIRT to the group that can develop temporary solutions to policy issues that arise during the implementation phase.
The Sub Pro Final Report states clearly on page 16 that the Predictability Framework is not a tool for developing new policy. (See excerpt at the bottom of this email.) Accordingly, in my capacity as Council Liaison to the SPIRT, I have added a proposed revision to our draft SPIRT Charter text stating that SPIRT may only be involved in the development of a temporary solution to an issue that falls in the category of requiring new policy development if Council specifically authorizes the SPIRT to take up that task. (To my mind, this would be on a case-by-case basis and not "pre-authorized" by the terms of the Predictability Framework and the SPIRT Charter since Council may choose a different mechanism for developing temporary solutions to policy issues depending on the nature of the policy issue.)
I do not know at this point whether the SPIRT team will accept the suggested revision to the draft since SPIRT Drafting Team Leadership took the view in our July 8 meeting that the existing text was ready to be approved "as-is" and that:
(1) If it is a temporary solution, it is not policy and
2) It's ok for the SPIRT to develop temporary policy solutions in collaboration with the Council, the Board, and ICANN Org "on the fly" when needed.
I understand that Leadership is motivated by a strong desire to finish the drafting work. However, I believe the work must accurately reflect the Sub Pro Final Report which contains the language excerpted below.
Accordingly, after having sent several emails to the IRT and the SPIRT lists expressing this concern during the past week, I raised this issue in person at the Sub Pro IRT meeting today. Lars has been on vacation and will review the issue in the coming days. Following the IRT meeting, another IRT member contacted me privately to say that SPIRT should not be involved at all in the development of temporary solutions to address policy issues that arise in the then-current round because that would be contrary to the Sub Pro Final Report. Hopefully the IRT and the SPIRT will be willing to address this jointly before the draft Charter is presented to Council. If not, I won't be able to recommend the Charter to the Council for a yes vote and have so advised the SPIRT team Leadership.
Again, thanks for your concern previously expressed. Given those concerns from you as a voting Council member, I wanted to keep you up to date on further developments. (All Council members are copied on this email.) Hoping to report good news in the near future...
Anne
From the Sub Pro Final Report - page 16.
"The Predictability Framework is principally: • A framework for analyzing the type/scope/context of an issue and if already known, the proposed or required Program change, to assist in determining the impact of the change and the process/mechanism that should be followed to address the issue. *The framework is therefore a tool to help the community understand how an issue should be addressed as opposed to determining what the solution to the issue should be; the framework is not a mechanism to develop policy. The Framework is not intended to identify the solution to an issue but rather, to identify the proper mechanism to reach a solution in a consistent and procedurally sound manner*. Therefore, this Framework complements the existing GNSO processes and procedures. It is not intended to be a substitute or replacement for those, nor should the Framework be seen as supplanting the GNSO Council’s decision-making authority.
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 8:14 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Peter. Apologies for the delayed reply but there has been a lot happening on the SPIRT team and in the Sub Pro IRT in relation to the issue you have raised re Annex E.
Actually the attached slides presented at Council were designed to point out the very specific areas where the SPIRT Charter differs from Annex E. In general, the team views Annex E as Implementation Guidance and felt it was necessary to conform that guidance to the procedural steps reflected in the Predictability Framework that was published for comment at the IRT Level.
In fact, there is now a new sentence in our draft that states that in the event of a conflict between the methodology specified in the SPIRT Charter and the procedures specified in the Predictability Framework, the Predictability Framework procedures will govern.
Having said that, the team has also clarified that ICANN Org is not the only body that can classify or "triage" an issue that arises. If the issue arises at the ICANN Org level, ICANN Org will make an initial classification. However, both the SPIRT Charter and the Predictability Framework now make clear that if an issue is raised by the Council or by the Board and brought to the SPIRT, then the SPIRT will make an initial classification of the issue in one of the categories relative to (1) whether or not the issue will have a material impact on Applicants and (2) whether or not it can be solved inside existing policy or else new policy is required.
The slides presented at Council say that ICANN Org will perform all triage, but again, that has been corrected in the current draft of the SPIRT Charter.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. Our last meeting (hopefully) is this coming Monday. Please let me know if you have additional questions and of course Council meetings are for open discussion on these matters. At this point, I am not sure whether the SPIRT Charter will be brought forward in July or later.
Please do reply all with any additional comments or questions you may have.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:52 PM Akinremi Peter Taiwo < compsoftnet@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Anne,
Thank you for your excellent presentation on the SPIRT charter during the council session. I noticed that the presentation did not touch on the inconsistency between Annex E and the proposed charter during the council meeting. I understand that time constraints may have limited a more detailed discussion.
I wanted to know if there is an ongoing conversation concerning resolving the inconsistency in Annex E and the proposed charter to prevent potential conflict and confusion.
And thank you for the follow-up, Anne.
Kind regards.
Peter
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 12:57 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter,
I wanted to follow up with you as to any questions you may have with respect to the SPIRT Charter presentation. We need to act quickly on this in order to get your feedback.
The SPIRT Chair and Vice Chair are copied as well as ICANN staff in charge of supporting the drafting team. We only have two more meetings at this point over the next two weeks.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
--
Best regards
*Taiwo Peter Akinremi*
------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------
*Policy Advisory | Data Governance and Privacy Consultant | Information Security & Cybersecurity | Certified Salesforce Administrator*
*Phone*; +2348117714345, +2347063830177 *Skype*: akinremi.taiwo
*Email:* compsoftnet@gmail.com, peterexecute@gmail.com
___________________________________________