Thanks Emily. The notes are great.

One thing that I do not believe was captured in these notes, however, was a point raised by Becky Burr which was that if there is a recommendation in a PDP and that recommendation supplements, changes or reverses an existing policy, then the PDP Working Group should indicate in its final report that it is specifically intending to supplement, change or reverse the impacted policy. Therefore, it will be clear to the Board that the new PDP did consider the impact of the new recommendations on existing policies and that it specifically intended the impact on the existing policy.

I believe that was a recommendation that was supported by those participating in the discussion. Perhaps that was covered in your notes on expanding the role of the Liaisons, but I think it is a point that is worth calling out on its own.

Sincerely,

Jeff

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

p: +1.202.549.5079

E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com

http://jjnsolutions.com

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas via council
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 5:06 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Notes - Modifying gTLD Consensus Policies call with ICANN Org, GNSO Council and SG/C Chairs - 4 May 2022 at 13:00 UTC

Dear all,

Please find below high-level notes from yesterday’s meeting.

Kind regards,

Marika and Emily

Modifying gTLD Consensus Policies call with ICANN Org, GNSO Council and SG/C Chairs

4 May 2022 at 13:00 UTC

Introductory remarks

Philippe noted that this discussion is part on of several related threads of work, which have been captured in a PDP improvements discussion paper developed by policy support staff with Council leadership. The paper tries to categorize items that are high-impact and low effort as well as items that require more work or planning, and tries to capture specific suggestions from the Modifying Consensus Policies paper and from other sources.
Theresa shared that the Modifying gTLD Consensus Policies paper was developed by her team in the spirit of contributing to the conversation about how to improve and evolve our work.

Group discussion

Some support was expressed for the items on pages 10-14 of the Modifying Consensus Policy paper, noting that these items seem like improvements that are relatively straightforward and do not require the addition of heavy process elements.
With respect to modifying consensus policies, the group discussed that there might be a range of issues that could come up and it is not always easy to anticipate and develop processes to anticipate the types of issues that need to be addressed. At the same time, as more policy development takes place and the number of policies increases, it is likely that there will be more cases of policy recommendations having an impact on existing consensus policy.

ICANN org staff emphasized that while each case is different, when a new policy impacts existing policy, it is important to understand the roles involved and what is the proper place to have a discussion. This does not necessarily mean that processes need to be complex and burdensome. The goal is clarity. It was also suggested that in those cases where there is an impact on existing consensus policies, it might be possible to distinguish between those updates that would not significantly impact contractual requirements of Contracted Parties, vs. those that would. Different approaches might need to apply depending on the impact of the changes that would need to be applied.

Some participants in the conversation expressed concern that additional process could create additional burden on the GNSO community, slow down the progression of work, and create unnecessary barriers. Similarly, some noted that this should not be a way to circumvent the Policy Development Process as that is how new and/or changes to existing Consensus Policies should be developed / confirmed.
There was general agreement that the evolving role of GDS liaisons to PDPs is a positive step, and that this may enable early identification of issues before the PDP concludes. Further evolution of this role could help to reduce the need to address issues related to modifying consensus policies, but will not eliminate the need altogether. Some also viewed early engagement by the Board as a positive step, because it helps to ensure that the Board has a clearer sense of the community’s work and expectations with respect to the recommendations.
It was noted that it is important for the Board to know clearly if there is an intention by a PDP to change a policy.
Additional support was expressed for the items on pages 10-14 of the Modifying Consensus Policy paper.

Next Steps

The next Council meeting is on 19 May during which the Council will consider the PDP Improvements discussion paper and proposed approach for tracking and coordinating on the different threads of conversation. If there is support for moving forward, Council will work to identify who is responsible and next steps. This is a continuous process for improvement and the door is not closed for additional input.
Org may build on the Modifying gTLD Consensus Policies paper and today’s discussion by putting forward additional suggestions for improvement for Council and community consideration.
An additional follow-up call may be appropriate with ICANN Org, GNSO Council and SG/C Chairs following the Council discussion.

Emily Barabas

Policy Development Support Senior Manager

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976