Thanks, Anne. Please find some responses to your questions in blue below. Best regards, Marika From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lewisroca.com> Date: Tuesday, 25 October 2022 at 19:53 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, "Demetriou, Samantha" <sdemetriou@verisign.com>, Ashley Heineman <aheineman@godaddy.com>, Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com>, "Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie)" <MCole@perkinscoie.com>, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>, "wuknoben@gmail.com" <wuknoben@gmail.com>, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin@gmail.com>, Raoul Plommer <plommer@gmail.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon@icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: GNSO Council & SC/G Chairs call: PDP Improvements & Next Steps Standing Committee on SCBO Thank you, Marika. Regarding Recommendation #1, my recollection is that the GDS Guidelines for GDS Liaisons to PDPs is quite thorough. Could you please send these around again via link or pdf before tomorrow’s meeting? A concern here is that participation by the Liaison should be active and timely. In the past, we have had active participation but I believe there may have been reluctance to provide too much concrete input because the Working Group had not reached a final conclusion during its deliberations as to where the policy development was headed. This is a bit of a “chicken and egg” problem. I’m sure Karen Lentz could be helpful in providing comments as to how the GDS Liaison can deal with that dynamic. What we absolutely must avoid is late-breaking advice from GDS as to whether policies under discussion can be executed or not. The feasibility of any policy under discussion by the WG needs to be addressed at the policy development stage. Otherwise, this improvement could become a “roadblock”. Here is the link to the GDS Guidelines: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20220919/fa2e1ac6/Guideli... Regarding Recommendation #2 as to Council sharing anticipated time frames with the Board. Can we be more specific as to what is required of Council in connection with adopting this improvement? The verb, “consider” is pretty vague. Do we mean that Council should “endeavor to share time frames with the Board as early as possible”? This is how this improvement was formulated in the 2021 SPS meeting report from which this improvement stems. Maybe this additional context is helpful: “Status and next steps of GNSO policy recommendations post-Council adoption - The Council should explore how it can assist in keeping the ball rolling once policy recommendations leave the Council – for example, the Council could be more proactive in asking the ICANN Board and ICANN org about expected timing / timelines as well as how it can assist in making sure things move forward. In addition, the Council should consider sharing with the ICANN Board when certain items are expected to move from Council to Board to facilitate advance planning by the ICANN Board.” (from the SPS Meeting Report) Recommendation #3 looks solid and attainable to me. Recommendation #4 – As I commented in the survey, it would be unfair for the Chair and WG members to be tasked with identifying all policies that might be affected by their work on a specific PDP. If staff identifies the policies that need to be reviewed by the WG in advance, that is a task that is well-defined and attainable. A “general” instruction to the PDP Working Group to “identify other policies that are affected” is unworkable. In addition to staff identification of possible implications, would it not be incumbent on the GDS Liaison to raise any new or late-breaking effects on existing policies as the work progresses in the WG and to bring that question to the attention of the WG Chairs? Could we say that (1) existing policies to be reviewed by the WG should be specifically identified and (2) WG should also review any existing policies that are identified by the GDS Liaison as needing to be analyzed in the course of the WG’s Deliberations? Recommendation #5 – For the WG to include in the Final Report “any direct or indirect” effect on existing policies. Again, this is overly broad in scope. If a particular policy has been identified in the Charter as requiring review OR if the GDS Liaison has identified an existing policy that is affected, then it makes sense to require the Working Group to address that in the Final Report. As we all know, policy development and implementation is an ongoing and iterative process. We should not be creating obligations on the Working Group that lend themselves to getting mired down in processes that ultimately should be handled at the IRT level. Recommendation #6 re Role of Board Liaison to the PDP looks good to me. Recommendation #7 – not sure how we can approve this without knowing the future of the Operational Design Phase. When you update the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework as recommended, how do you account for the possible duplication of effort if the PDP Outcomes have already been reviewed by ICANN Org in the Operational Design Phase? For example, you now have an Operational Design Assessment that will be coming from ICANN Org on the Sub Pro Recommendations. If you update the CPIF as recommended here, does that mean ICANN Org comes back again at the IRT phase and does additional assessments? How would the amendment to the CPIF interact with the ODP and ODA process created by the Board which is still being assessed? It seems to me that this Recommendation is subject to and has to be put on hold until Recommendation 9 is accomplished – #9 is Review of ODP process. Note that the proposed next step is only about asking about a possible timeline for future updates to the CPIF. Recommendation #8 – Review of the Policy Status Report details certainly makes sense. How do we fit this work into the list of priorities? Is this a Small Team assignment for Council? (Maybe I don’t understand the proposed execution of this improvement. If so, I apologize.) The proposed next step is for staff to further detail what a Policy Status Report would entail, so that the Council can review if would like the staff support team to move forward with the PSR. This is not expected to be a long document just a high level overview but it is of course up to the Council to decide if it would need to form a small team to review this. Recommendation #9 – Review of ODP - Support this one and believe that the proposed survey should be expanded to a wide audience in the community. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel AAikman@lewisroca.com<mailto:AAikman@lewisroca.com> D. 520.629.4428 [cid:image002.png@01D8E8B1.373B05A0] From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings via council Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 3:10 AM To: Demetriou, Samantha <sdemetriou@verisign.com>; Ashley Heineman <aheineman@godaddy.com>; Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com>; Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole@perkinscoie.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; wuknoben@gmail.com; Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin@gmail.com>; Raoul Plommer <plommer@gmail.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon@icann.org>; Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org> Subject: [council] GNSO Council & SC/G Chairs call: PDP Improvements & Next Steps Standing Committee on SCBO [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Sent on behalf of Sebastien Ducos **************** Dear All, Based on the survey results<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/206144128/PDP%20Improvements%20-%20Survey%20Report%20-%2016%20September%202022.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1663427586000&api=v2> and the subsequent discussion during the ICANN75 session, the Council leadership team is recommending moving forward with the following PDP Improvements as outlined in the table below. Please note that the proposed next steps represent an incremental step – once this step has been implemented, there will be another opportunity for the GNSO community to consider how to proceed. For the upcoming meeting, Council leadership suggests focusing on those next steps that Council or SG/C Chairs do not support so we can focus on those during the meeting and start moving forward with items that do not raise any concerns. As such, please flag in advance of the meeting which items you would like to discuss further. As a reminder, the meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 25 October at 19.00 UTC. The first half of the meeting will be dedicated to the PDP Improvements discussion, the second half will focus on the next steps ​​concerning the Standing Committee on ICANN Budget and Operations (SCBO). On behalf of Council leadership, Sebastien Improvement Next Step Who is responsible for next step #1 - Enable a process during the PDP to share relevant information and analysis on potential impacts to existing policies, to support consideration by PDP working groups (define this process as part of the GDS liaison role) Council to review Guidelines for GDS Liaisons to PDPs and determine whether anything further is needed to consider this improvement complete GNSO Council #2 - The Council should consider sharing with the ICANN Board when certain items are expected to move from Council to Board to facilitate advance planning by the ICANN Board Derive from the project list and ADR items expected to be delivered to the ICANN Board in the coming year. In combination with sharing its SPS report, the Council communicates to the Board which items are expected to be forwarded to the ICANN Board for its consideration during that year to allow the ICANN Board to anticipate as part of its planning when it may need to consider GNSO policy recommendations. GNSO Staff Support Team GNSO Council #3 - Following adoption of a PDP Final Report by the GNSO Council, schedule a meeting with the ICANN Board to allow the GNSO Council, with the assistance of the PDP Chair(s), to present the Final Report and recommendations to the ICANN Board and allow for Q & A. An invitation has been sent to the ICANN Board to provide a briefing on the IGO Curative Rights EPDP recommendations. Proposed presentation / slides are to be shared in advance of the meeting with the Board to ensure that it is a neutral representation of the results and does not interfere with independent review. Following meeting, debrief with Council & GNSO appointed Board members to determine if this was helpful and/or whether it should be continued Council & GNSO Appointed Board members #4 - Add to the charter template a general or specific provision / question regarding consideration of impact on existing consensus policies Staff support team to create for Council review proposed addition for charter template that would highlight the expectation that a PDP WG is to consider the impact of its recommendation on existing consensus policies. Review proposed addition (note, the template can always be modified as needed to ensure that it is fit for purpose, including calling out specific existing policies that should be factored in) GNSO Staff Support Team GNSO Council #5 - Include in the Final Report template a section to address any direct or indirect implications for existing policies, to support full consideration by the PDP working groups and the GNSO Council. This may include implementation guidance where appropriate. Staff support team to include in the Final Report template a section to address any direct or indirect implications for existing Policies. Inclusion of this section by a PDP Team will be linked to any charter requirement in this regard. Review proposed addition to Final Report template Staff Support Team GNSO Council #6 - Consider if/how the role of the Board liaison of a PDP can contribute to more effective communication. This could, for example, be done by communicating clearly at the outset of a PDP the expected role of the Board liaison. Include link to Board Liaison guidelines in charter template so that if Board liaison is included as part of the charter, the role and expectations can be considered in the context of the review of the charter Review proposed update to charter template GNSO Staff Support Team GNSO Council #7 - Update CPIF to note that as part of implementing a new policy, ICANN org and the IRT review updates to other policies and incorporate as part of the implementation plan Requests GDS to provide an indication of possible timing & consultation of such updates to the CPIF (note, last round of updates were made in 2018 and involved consultation with the GNSO Council / community – the communication should confirm that the expectation is that the same approach would be used). Council Leadership #8 - Review of Policy & Implementation Recommendations Provide further detail on what a policy status review (PSR) would be expected to cover and confirm that a PSR does not mean that a review is initiated but it allows Council to consider whether or not a review is appropriate, and what should be considered as part of a review, if initiated. Review PSR details and decide if/how to proceed. GNSO Staff Support GNSO Council #9 – Review of the Operational Design Phase Develop straightforward survey that can be used to solicit input from the GNSO Council liaison to the SSAD ODP as well as the small team that was tasked to review the ODP to document its findings so that these can be shared when the review takes place after the second ODP completes. Review proposed survey. Notify the Council Liaison to the SubPro ODP that there will be the expectation to provide input on the experience with the ODP so that he can prepare and document his findings accordingly. GNSO Staff Support Team GNSO Council Council Leadership ________________________________ 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.