RPM PDP Phase 1 Recommendations Report
Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on the RPM PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations for your consideration. Following the customary practice, this report will be added to the consent agenda of the Council’s meeting on 18 February, unless there are any comments or concerns with this approach. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Ariel, Thanks for the Recommendations Report. On Page 7 it states: “In view of the expected workload, resource allocation, and the need for coordination with other parallel efforts, implementation of the Phase 1 final recommendations may take a minimum of two (2) years following Board adoption. However, this timeline is likely to be impacted by the timing of the approval of the SubPro PDP recommendations (including whether the Board also initiates an Operational Design Phase to plan for the SubPro implementation” Can you explain in some more detail what is behind the 2 years minimum estimate from the time the Board approves (and presumably longer if implementing in conjunction with SubPro)? If the Board approves this in 3 months (after a new public comment period), we are talking about implementation in May 2023 at the earliest which seems like a very long time. I think my questions boil down to: 1. Line 152 (Section 1.2.1.5) of the Program Tool sets IRT engagement at 270 days from Board Approval (9 Months). How did we get to 2 years? 2. Is there a more detailed draft project plan that is not incorporated into the tool? 3. Who within ICANN staff puts together that section of the Recommendations Report and by accepting the staff generated Recommendations Report is the Council endorsing the timeline? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image003.png@01D6FEC0.7CFB7AC0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 5:00 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RPM PDP Phase 1 Recommendations Report Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on the RPM PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations for your consideration. Following the customary practice, this report will be added to the consent agenda of the Council’s meeting on 18 February, unless there are any comments or concerns with this approach. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Hello Jeff and everyone, I’m responding on behalf of the RPM staff support team, with thanks to Jeff for reviewing the document so quickly. The short answer to Jeff’s question is that the estimate is suggested by Policy staff based on recent or comparable policy implementation exercises (recognizing that it is usually not possible to have close similarities in most cases). In this instance, the most recent implementation effort was for the Consensus Policy on Red Cross National Society names. The Board adopted the final PDP recommendations in January 2019 and the final policy text was published in January 2020 (following a public comment period), with the policy becoming effective in August 2020. As Councilors may recall, this exercise was a fairly limited, well-defined one that relied mainly on org staff working with the Red Cross representatives, where the IRT was a continuation of the previous one for implementing the broader Consensus Policy on IGO-INGO full names (and it was of course regularly updated and consulted). For RPMs, we anticipate that a substantial part of the implementation work will similarly involve org staff working with the various RPM service providers (TMCH validation, TMCH database, URS, TM-PDDRP) with the guidance of the IRT. Please note that both the Recommendations Report and the Council’s Program Management Tool contain only rough estimates by Policy staff at the current time, as at this stage detailed implementation planning will not have commenced. As such, these estimates are not based on a specific project plan and, due to the timing, cannot reflect staffing and other resource availability or limitations that may be in place once the IRT is formed. For RPMs, our understanding is the Program Management Tool (which, prior to the drafting of the Recommendations Report, has a placeholder minimum estimate of 1 calendar year) will be updated as more implementation planning work is done, especially with GDS staff leading this phase of work following Board adoption of the PDP recommendations. In hindsight, for greater clarity it seems that we should include this contextual information in all GNSO Council Recommendations Reports going forward. I believe Steve and the GNSO team have already taken note of this need. As such, staff would like to suggest that, for the RPM Phase 1 Recommendations Report, we insert additional clarifying text to minimize any confusion and to explain the limitations of requiring an estimate at this stage of the process. We will circulate an updated document to the Council as soon as feasible, highlighting these changes. Thanks and cheers Mary From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 8:50 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] RPM PDP Phase 1 Recommendations Report Ariel, Thanks for the Recommendations Report. On Page 7 it states: “In view of the expected workload, resource allocation, and the need for coordination with other parallel efforts, implementation of the Phase 1 final recommendations may take a minimum of two (2) years following Board adoption. However, this timeline is likely to be impacted by the timing of the approval of the SubPro PDP recommendations (including whether the Board also initiates an Operational Design Phase to plan for the SubPro implementation” Can you explain in some more detail what is behind the 2 years minimum estimate from the time the Board approves (and presumably longer if implementing in conjunction with SubPro)? If the Board approves this in 3 months (after a new public comment period), we are talking about implementation in May 2023 at the earliest which seems like a very long time. I think my questions boil down to: 1. Line 152 (Section 1.2.1.5) of the Program Tool sets IRT engagement at 270 days from Board Approval (9 Months). How did we get to 2 years? 2. Is there a more detailed draft project plan that is not incorporated into the tool? 3. Who within ICANN staff puts together that section of the Recommendations Report and by accepting the staff generated Recommendations Report is the Council endorsing the timeline? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D6FEEB.5C05C520] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 5:00 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RPM PDP Phase 1 Recommendations Report Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on the RPM PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations for your consideration. Following the customary practice, this report will be added to the consent agenda of the Council’s meeting on 18 February, unless there are any comments or concerns with this approach. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Thank you Mary for the explanation and I think the changes you recommend would be positive. Context is key especially because people outside of the GNSO and ICANN read these things and it sets expectations not just of the Board and community, but for third parties. Perhaps not as huge issue for RPMs Phase 1, but for something like SubPro where prospective applicants are watching everything produced by ICANN and the community to get a clear message on if and when the next round will be, these documents matter. They will be spending actual real money on preparations. What we say, whether it is the Working Group, the Council, ICANN staff, or the ICANN Board, matters. I personally think the fact that others watch what we do and rely on it is one of the rewarding aspects of participating in the Multi-stakeholder model. Thanks again! Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image002.png@01D6FEF6.FE311DD0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:56 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] RPM PDP Phase 1 Recommendations Report Hello Jeff and everyone, I’m responding on behalf of the RPM staff support team, with thanks to Jeff for reviewing the document so quickly. The short answer to Jeff’s question is that the estimate is suggested by Policy staff based on recent or comparable policy implementation exercises (recognizing that it is usually not possible to have close similarities in most cases). In this instance, the most recent implementation effort was for the Consensus Policy on Red Cross National Society names. The Board adopted the final PDP recommendations in January 2019 and the final policy text was published in January 2020 (following a public comment period), with the policy becoming effective in August 2020. As Councilors may recall, this exercise was a fairly limited, well-defined one that relied mainly on org staff working with the Red Cross representatives, where the IRT was a continuation of the previous one for implementing the broader Consensus Policy on IGO-INGO full names (and it was of course regularly updated and consulted). For RPMs, we anticipate that a substantial part of the implementation work will similarly involve org staff working with the various RPM service providers (TMCH validation, TMCH database, URS, TM-PDDRP) with the guidance of the IRT. Please note that both the Recommendations Report and the Council’s Program Management Tool contain only rough estimates by Policy staff at the current time, as at this stage detailed implementation planning will not have commenced. As such, these estimates are not based on a specific project plan and, due to the timing, cannot reflect staffing and other resource availability or limitations that may be in place once the IRT is formed. For RPMs, our understanding is the Program Management Tool (which, prior to the drafting of the Recommendations Report, has a placeholder minimum estimate of 1 calendar year) will be updated as more implementation planning work is done, especially with GDS staff leading this phase of work following Board adoption of the PDP recommendations. In hindsight, for greater clarity it seems that we should include this contextual information in all GNSO Council Recommendations Reports going forward. I believe Steve and the GNSO team have already taken note of this need. As such, staff would like to suggest that, for the RPM Phase 1 Recommendations Report, we insert additional clarifying text to minimize any confusion and to explain the limitations of requiring an estimate at this stage of the process. We will circulate an updated document to the Council as soon as feasible, highlighting these changes. Thanks and cheers Mary From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 8:50 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] RPM PDP Phase 1 Recommendations Report Ariel, Thanks for the Recommendations Report. On Page 7 it states: “In view of the expected workload, resource allocation, and the need for coordination with other parallel efforts, implementation of the Phase 1 final recommendations may take a minimum of two (2) years following Board adoption. However, this timeline is likely to be impacted by the timing of the approval of the SubPro PDP recommendations (including whether the Board also initiates an Operational Design Phase to plan for the SubPro implementation” Can you explain in some more detail what is behind the 2 years minimum estimate from the time the Board approves (and presumably longer if implementing in conjunction with SubPro)? If the Board approves this in 3 months (after a new public comment period), we are talking about implementation in May 2023 at the earliest which seems like a very long time. I think my questions boil down to: 1. Line 152 (Section 1.2.1.5) of the Program Tool sets IRT engagement at 270 days from Board Approval (9 Months). How did we get to 2 years? 2. Is there a more detailed draft project plan that is not incorporated into the tool? 3. Who within ICANN staff puts together that section of the Recommendations Report and by accepting the staff generated Recommendations Report is the Council endorsing the timeline? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image003.png@01D6FEF6.FE311DD0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 5:00 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RPM PDP Phase 1 Recommendations Report Dear Councilors, Attached, please find the draft GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on the RPM PDP Phase 1 Final Recommendations for your consideration. Following the customary practice, this report will be added to the consent agenda of the Council’s meeting on 18 February, unless there are any comments or concerns with this approach. Thank you for your review. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
participants (3)
-
Ariel Liang -
Jeff Neuman -
Mary Wong