May 2019 - Gnso-newgtld-wg - lists.icann.org

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 13 May 2019
by Julie Hedlund May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 13 May 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-05-13+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Staff to incorporate suggested edits to the Policy Goals section of 2.2.3 Applications assessed in rounds. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents: 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish: Discussion: -- Add to the Policy Goals what the rounds provide for the non-contracted parties re: predictable periods for participation from the larger community. -- On the last policy goal: Questions 1) what we mean by “regular and recurring”; 2) review teams -- reference to “operational feasible” but no reference to required reviews. Clarify that it is subject to something other than operational feasibility. Answer: “regular and recurring” is the terminology used because there are a bunch a questions that could narrow down that policy goal and clarify what we mean. On the CCT-RT, that also is a question that we need to talk about as a group -- whether that review stops everything else from going on, or in conjunction with a subsequent round. -- If you run review concurrently, when do you incorporate the changes resulting from the review recommendations? -- Might depend on the CCT-RT recommendations -- if there is a major policy issue then maybe the round halts, but there needs to be a communication period so that applicants can adjust their applications. -- Could say that if the CCT-RT want to stop something it needs to specifically recommend that, otherwise there would rounds conducted at regular intervals. -- Should always be an option for a review team make a recommendation that things should be put on hold and demonstrate that this is a serious enough problem that needs to be solved before the start of the next application window. -- Additional policy goals: 1) reflect reviews and results 2) adequate time periods for comments and objections from non-applicants in the community. -- Add: “Ongoing rounds should not stop reviews taking place and these reviews can concur concurrently but the results of reviews would take effect when the next subsequent round begins.” -- We can't say "ongoing rounds should not stop reviews" - we have no authority to say that. We can say we recommend that rounds continue unless and until new policy is developed - but ONLY if that is a consensus of the WG. It seems fairly important - and should be included in the limited number of questions for public comment. As Jamie has pointed out, it could be pretty confusing if you prepare and application and then policy changes.  -- Re: the policy goal, It's not just subject to being "operationally feasible". It should be "subject to any needed further policy development" -- Add: “Facilitate public comments and critiques by non-applicants in the community.” -- On FCFS, most were against it. Public comment summary 2.2.3.c.1: Discussion: -- Intervals -- thoughts? Don’t use an example of a specific year. Say, “a particular date certain.” Correct this in the final report. -- Or say, “9 months after X percent of applications have been delegated.” The subject of communications should be discussed when we talk about communication periods. -- Criteria being delegation rather than initial evaluation: If you have a date certain with a qualifier the problem is that you take away from predictability. -- Should avoid saying a particular percent of applications should be delegated -- if too many fail we might not meet the threshold. Also, delegation could be a year after. -- QUESTION: How would the new appeal mechanisms affect the "end" of the Evaluation and Objection periods? QUESTION -- You will have a fairly complex pipeline so you can close the windows, but you can’t close the process that leads to contracts, delegation, and launching of domains. -- The % passed Initial Evaluation could be a reasonable way forward. Given the earlier discussions, there could also be specific and major reasons to halt the process at times (although should be exceptional) . -- Do need to look at delegation because that is the completion of the application process. But not looking at closure, but when we can start the next application window. Could have multiple rounds open at the same time. -- Let’s say 75% of the applications have been evaluated, then announce that the next round will open on X date. If you were to do that you would have to set rules that you can’t apply for a string applied for under the previous/ongoing round. -- You could look at it in terms of limiting factors to initiating a subsequent round -- what would allow those to be cleared, such as operational readiness of ICANN Org -- might require outreach to ICANN Org, specific reviews, readiness of the community, etc. Identify the limiting factors and what would allow clearance of them. From the perspective of GDD, would think they would need a sense of certainty of what is needed and to know when to allocate resources. -- Could be based on that the applicant has paid all the fees. -- Trying to get a balance of predictability for applicants and readiness for everyone else. 3. AOB: Presentation by Jeff Neuman at GDD Summit. -- Will include any feedback in our discussion, and the session was recorded. -- See: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/jJkqOiXMlpT-Fvd_iSX10H6Ig3hfZT7ItWxFw… Session recordings here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdd-summit-session-recordings-2019-05…

1 0

Zoom Drop In Training
by Andrea Glandon May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

Dear all, On Monday, 20 May 2019 we will have a Zoom room available from 13:00-15:00 UTC for members to join, explore the room/features and have a support staff member available to answer questions. Please feel free to join at any time during the above 2 hour time frame. Attached you will also find a ics attachment for your calendar. If you have questions about this training, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org https://icann.zoom.us/my/gnso.pdp1 One tap mobile +19294362866,,3107952819# US (New York) +16699006833,,3107952819# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 310 795 2819 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_acwzlz1QoY&d…> Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Zoom Drop In Training
by ICANN Policy Calendar May 13, 2019

May 13, 2019

On Monday, 20 May 2019 we will have a Zoom room available from 13:00-15:00 UTC for members to join, explore the room/features and have a support staff member available to answer questions. Please feel free to join at any time during the above 2 hour time frame. If you have questions about this training, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org https://icann.zoom.us/my/gnso.pdp1 One tap mobile +19294362866,,3107952819# US (New York) +16699006833,,3107952819# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 310 795 2819 Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_u_acwzlz1QoY&d…> Thank you. Andrea Glandon

1 0

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 13 May 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund May 10, 2019

May 10, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 13 May 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…) * 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds * 2.2.4 TLD Types (time permitting) 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a sort of catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Recordings, attendance & chat / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 06 May 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter May 7, 2019

May 7, 2019

Dear All, Please find the attendance and Zoom chat attached, and the MP3 and Zoom recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 06 May 2019 at 15:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/_RVIBg Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-06may19-en.mp3 Zoom Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/qlekr0ukS77NfMLqQp4cKKyLyuqbKzwZGiKLX… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 06 May 2019
by Julie Hedlund May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 06 May 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-05-06+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Staff to incorporate edits as discussed into the 2.2.2 Predictability document. ACTION ITEM 2: Gather a small group to further develop the 2.2.2 Predictability document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecG…. Jeff will send out a call for volunteers to the list. Volunteers thus far: Kristina Rosette, Kathy Kleiman and Christopher Wilkinson. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…) a. Continued: 2.2.2 Predictability / 2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process: See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecG… -- Note: If we don’t come to consensus on a topic then the status quo will be as it was implemented in 2012. On the record that some do not support that approach. -- There are some different things relating to IRTs that could be new. 2.2.2 Predictability: -- Added bullet: The Predictability Model complements the existing GNSO processes and procedures and shall not in any way operate to be a substitute or replacement for those. In fact, they are incorporated into the Predictability Framework explicitly. Discussion: -- “they” references existing processes and procedures. -- To avoid any doubt in future we might want to add, “In the event of a conflict, existing GNSO processes and procedures take precedent.” -- Change from “shall not in any way operate to be” to “is not intended to be”. What are we proposing: B. Changes to ICANN Organization Internal Processes Discussion: -- Comfortable that we have a distinction for minor changes. -- For the first bullet under (b) -- re: “anything visible” -- what does that encompass? Add “change the application or any of the other processes set forth in the applicant guidebook”. Or “those parts of the application that are scored”? -- Third bullet -- New processes: Some examples have direct relevance for the entire community. Such as a new public comment platform. -- Standing IRT decides what is implementation or policy -- but some WG members disagree. -- Change to “Material adverse impact”? -- Second bullet -- “all non-minor changes” -- in written policy? Answer: The output of this whole thing will eventually be the AGB and if there are changes to the AGB they would be written. -- So not a reasonable response that a process will just take longer -- just being a communication. Seems like there should be more accountability. Add a comment/note to see if that falls under a different category. -- Filter out those things that can be dealt with in a practical matter. -- Third bullet: Need a gateway process before we get to these items. Wherever something affects the underlying rules has huge implications. -- Might need to clarify: “New public comment platform” means changes to the tools being used to submit. The rules for commenting is the same, but the platform is different. -- Second bullet: Not meant to be a change in the timing, but a change in a portal. -- Add a line after bullet three, “These proposed changes are intended to be only those that involve mechanisms with no substantive impact.” Question: How is that different from this text, “but rather a New ICANN Organization Internal Process and it is likely to have a materially [adverse] impact on applicants or community members…” Seems similar in meaning. -- An example of a change that wouldn’t be substantive but could have a material adverse impact would be requiring that Legal Rights Objections be filed through a proprietary platform instead of email. Wouldn't affect the substantive LRO (elements, standing, etc), but there may be some potential objectors that, for one reason or another, can't use that platform. -- Are timelines on filing objections seen as a different type of timeline as a third-party timeline? -- What might be a minor change for one party could be a major change to others. Adverse outcomes -- for whom? Should there be a policy gateway to determine? We don’t have a framework that would be considered to be predictable. -- If there is a gateway then that could delay any changes. -- Overriding principle is predictability. Trying to improve predictability from the last round. C. Fundamental Possible Policy Level Changes Discussion: -- Some examples seem to be out of scope for an IRT. -- Deciding something that is policy: a standing IRT can raise that issue and the GNSO Liaison can take that back to the Council. Any Council member also can raise something for consideration at the Council level. -- So a standing IRT can raise something, but only the Council can decide what is policy or implementation, but it sounds like we are setting up a separate gateway. The standing IRT cannot be the final arbiter, and the Council also can raise it directly. -- Add to the bullet point that the standing IRT can make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether something is policy or implementation, but the GNSO will make the final decision. -- Ensure that this document is cross-referenced to the current policies and processes for IRTs. -- What do we mean by “Staff will collaborate with the community”? Answer: That is meant to first go to the standing IRT, which makes a recommendation for additional consideration, and then the GNSO decides how to handle it -- GNSO Input Process, EPDP, etc. -- Delete this text, “Staff will collaborate with the community to consider the issue and agree upon the mechanism by which the solution will be developed. Options could include:” And emphasize the point that this is meant to be a community+staff decision, not just staff. Mark them as redlined and to be replaced. Come back to this in another WG meeting. -- Helpful to have a workflow diagram for the Predictability Framework once concepts are agreed and reconcile with existing ones from IRT Guidelines. D. Fundamental Possible Policy Level New Proposals Discussion: -- Carry over changes from bullets under C. -- Reaching out to the community means staff reaching out to the standing IRT. But don’t think the standing IRT has the authority to decide if something is a policy or implementation change. Could have a new group that includes members of the IRT, and also Council members, and then decide if it goes to the standing IRT. -- Want to change what we call this because of previous problems with IRTs. Want to get the composition right so it is representative of the community. Meant to ensure that it is a gateway. -- A number of groups supported the recommendations in the Initial Report but also some dissenting views: ACTION: Form a smaller group to further develop this document for the full WG. Volunteers thus far: Kristina Rosette, Kathy Kleiman and Christopher Wilkinson.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 6 May 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

Dear WG members, We will consider the following updated text when discussing 2.2.2 Predictability (agenda item 2.a) on the call today: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecG… Note that there are no new concepts in this revision. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 3 May 2019 at 19:42 To: "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-newgtld-wg" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 6 May 2019 at 15:00 UTC Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 6 May 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: 1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…) * Continued: 2.2.2 Predictability / 2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process * 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds 3. AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a sort of catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-…>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

2 1

"Standing IRT" or "Post-Launch IRT" or some other name
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

Hi Kathy – I want to preface my comments below with the statement that I personally support the “general agreement” Initial Report preliminary recommendation for a “Standing IRT”. I do not support changing the name to anything other than “Post-launch IRT” since the term IRT is well-defined in GNSO Operating Procedures in a manner that is designed to guarantee oversight and transparency. It is also referenced in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework which is integrated with existing GNSO Input and Guidance procedures designed to address issues arising both pre-launch and post-launch. (Significantly, public comment was obtained in relation to a “Standing IRT” and not in relation to any other entity so renaming the entity is not at all likely to “eliminate confusion”.) The issues you have raised below are EXACTLY the issues and concerns reviewed at length by the Policy and Implementation Working Group using “real life” examples from the 2012 round post launch. Thus, Annex L of the GNSO Policy& Implementation Working Group Final Report specifies the following IRT Principles and Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/i… Whether it is a “Pre-launch IRT” or a “Post-launch IRT”, and whether the issue that arises is characterized by some as “policy” and by others as “implementation”, the same principles of oversight and transparency should apply. IN THIS REGARD, PLEASE SEE V. E. OF THE IRT PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES which applies “In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff and the IRT or any of its members on the implementation approach proposed by ICANN staff…” and goes on to define the role of the GNSO liaison in that event. In other words, a “Post-launch IRT” by any other name should still be a post-launch IRT as to which the same Principles and Guidelines apply. Otherwise, the community risks losing the GNSO Council oversight system which is currently baked into the Operating Procedures and the ByLaws. If I represent registry or registrar interests, I want a faster solution to my implementation issues and problems. That is understandable because time (delay) is money (poor cash flow and balance sheet). But again, one person’s “Implementation” is another person’s “Policy” and this is why the Sub Pro WG has to be very careful when addressing subjects like the Predictability Framework as well as some other recommendations coming later in relation to ICANN Org’s power/ability to resolve implementation issues post-launch. For anyone interested in a deeper understanding of how the existing GNSO Annexes apply to issues that arise during implementation, please see the IRT Principles and Guidelines above as well as the links to GNSO Input and GNSO Guidance below: GNSO Input Process Manual - https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-3-i… GNSO Input Process (GIP) Introduction: A GIP is the process through which the GNSO provides input on matters that may not involve gTLD policy, for example in response to a request from the ICANN Board or in response to a public comment forum as further described in this GIP Manual. Any such requests should include as much information as possible. A GIP may be initiated by the GNSO Council at any time it considers appropriate, for example, when a request for GNSO input is received from the ICANN Board or other entity that does not involve the creation of new obligations for ICANN contracted parties and does not relate to a topic otherwise suitable for a GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Guidance Process, for example providing GNSO Input to a public comment forum. GNSO Guidance Manual - https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-5-g… GNSO Guidance Process Manual1.GGP Manual –Introduction: These guidelines and processes supplement the requirements for GGPs described in Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws [include link]. A GGP may be initiated by the GNSO Council when a request for input relating to gTLDs (either a new issue or in relation to previous policy recommendations) has been received from the ICANN Board or a gTLD issue has been identified by the GNSO Council that would benefit from GNSO Guidance, and it has determined that the intended outcome of the GGP is not expected to create new “Consensus Policy” recommendations including, but not limited to, any new contractual obligations for contracted parties (in which case a PDP would need to be initiated). However, the GGP may provide interpretation or assist in providing clarity with regards to the implementation of GNSO policy recommendations. The GGP should not be used as a tool to reopen a previously explored policy issue only because a constituency or stakeholder group was not satisfied with outcome of a previously held process on the same policy issue, unless the circumstances have changed and/or new information is available Anne From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:29 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Subject: Re: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Jeff, Anne and All In response to Jeff's question of last night, and also to Anne's email below, part of the problem here is that an IRT does not define its own policy issues. Pre-launch IRTs are expressly not allowed to do that and now, thanks to your work Anne, there are ways to enforce against overreach. But the Standing IRT or the Post-Launch IRT is being designed expressly to handle unforeseen issues from soup to nuts -- and that's a problem from a structural and procedural perspective. In Round 1, unanticipated issues dotted New gTLD landscape: a flood of GAC warnings, digital archery, voluntary commitments being thrown into contracts without review, and more. Many of these issues required policy decisions. As we discussed and confirmed last night, a standing IRT or a post-launch IRT can't make policy. This leaves open the larger question of what issues would fall under the IRT(s) and how the policy issues will be identified, analyzed, assessed and handled? Some more specific questions come to mind: 1) How do we create a Gateway -- a group which screens incoming issues for whether they are policy or not? We have to be very careful here. This group must include members of the GNSO Council, the group charged with oversight of the policy policy. 2) If the issues/newly raised questions are policy -- what do we do next? This group cannot be the Standing IRT. Who will it be and how will they work? Bundling is likely to play a role here, as is public comment, GNSO Council and Board oversight. 3) If the issues/newly raised questions are procedural - what do we do? Who makes these decisions? How to we ensure that those communities who are generally underrepresented in IRTs have the opportunity to provide input, concerns and oversight? As noted in the comments of the Registries, there may be applicants who have interested in these decisions who are not part of the multistakeholder process. So too, there will be registrant groups and other communities -- with direct interest in these decisions who are not part of the multistakeholder process. How do we reach them and bring in their issues, concerns and expertise? Best, Kathy On 4/30/2019 5:36 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote: Regarding yesterday's call and the attempt to measure consensus on the recommendation for a “Standing IRT”, changing the name of that recommended body actually creates more confusion rather than less. The reasons are: Initial Report and Public Comment. The Initial Report recommended a "Standing IRT". There is a common understanding in the ICANN community about what an IRT does, how it is constituted, and what its powers are and are not. The documentation in GNSO procedures lays out the rules re IRT, including the composition of such a team which requires broad representation across the community. These understandings are codified in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures and in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework. If the proposed body is renamed, this would require additional public comment which would include the need to specify how such a body would be constituted and what is powers would be. Effect on Existing GNSO Procedures and ICANN ByLaws. Once you apply a new name to this proposed new body designed specifically to address implementation issues post-launch, you have an animal that is not recognized in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework nor in the GNSO Input, Guidance, and EPDP processes and is thus not incorporated into the language of those processes. Therefore, you will either have created a need for massive redrafting (including redrafting of the ICANN ByLaws) OR you will have removed that new body from the application of those processes. Jeff says there is no intention to change the applicability of the GNSO Input, Guidance, and EPDP process post-launch so it does not really make sense to name a new type of team that would require significant changes to existing procedures (and maybe even the ByLaws.) Thus, a "name change" for this body creates more questions than it answers. Prior Work of the Policy and Implementation WG. This has been a long-standing issue in Sub Pro since Leadership initially took the position that the GNSO Input, Guidance, and EPDP processes do not apply after launch. This is categorically not true. The Policy and Implementation Working Group examined numerous examples of issues that arose “post-launch” in the 2012 round. We ultimately concluded it is fruitless to try to characterize issues as either “policy” or “implementation” since one person’s policy is another’s implementation and vice versa. The mechanisms that were developed after the 2012 round to address these issues were specifically developed to apply WHENEVER the issue arise and to keep control of the issues at GNSO Council in a very transparent manner. It would be a massive change of policy to offer a new construct that either (1) causes the results of that PDP to have to be amended or (2) creates a new body that operates outside the established procedures already adopted by the Board and the GNSO. If everyone is anxious to simply clarify the time period in which the Team will operate, why not just call the teams the “Pre-launch IRT” and the “Post-launch IRT”. Much simpler and more predictable – and requires a lot less redrafting. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D4FF6F.3023C3D0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:38 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 30 April 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: -- Staff will check on the ICANN Board response to the GAC advice in the Helsinki Communique’ on new gTLDs. -- WG to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe “Post Application Advisory Team”. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…) 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish -- First bullet: replace “rounds” with “procedures”. 2.2.1.c.1: The Working Group recommends no changes to the existing policy calling for subsequent application rounds introduced in an ongoing, orderly, timely and predictable manner. -- Support from most commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: -- GAC Advice and BC: Support for new rounds but no rounds started until reviews (CCT-RT) are complete. Need to do a cost-benefit analysis before starting new round. -- WG is taking into consideration the CCT-RT recommendations. Discussion: -- Policy does not have a demand component. -- Action Item: Board response to GAC Advice in the Helskinki Communique’. -- Note that the CCT-RT did have an economic study done by the Analysis Group, although perhaps not a full cost-benefit analysis. -- Concerns with maintaining the current policy unless there are objections. -- Unless there is a consensus on changing precedent we should stay on the same path. -- Can build on what we have learned, but hard to do analysis on what people might want. -- If the WG wants to request for an assessment to be done that will have to be approved by the Council. -- Calling for rounds introduced in an ongoing orderly timely and predictable manner support came from pretty much every group that responded in public comments to the Initial Report. -- We have some qualifications from the GAC. 2.2.1.e.1: The 2007 Final Report noted that success metrics would be developed around the New gTLD Program. What are some specific metrics that the program should be measured against? -- Support from most commenters. New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: ALAC, BRG, BC, RySG – New Ideas Discussion: -- Good proposals for different types of metrics. -- Need to define what we mean by success; CCT-RT referred that issue to the SubPro WG. -- Questions and issues in the CCT-RT could put some of these issues to rest. -- This WG could come up with a half dozen categories (elements of the program) and develop definitions of success for those – or develop targets, which is a less loaded word. -- Good conversation to continue on email. -- You could have a high-level structure from the 2012 round (to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS), then create specific targets within that structure within that framework. 2.2.2 Predictability -- Support from most commenters -- BC/RySG/IPC/ALAC (in response to e.1): New Idea - The Standing IRT must be representative of the community, but must also allow for the appointment of experts where needed. New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations -- ICANN Org: Concerns/New Ideas Discussion: -- Can things in the model be improved so that you can support it? If not, what takes its place? -- Don’t think it’s in our authority to replace the GNSO policy process. -- We're not changing any of the policies or processes that have been established. -- Changes to policies after the launch need to go through the GNSO policy process; the predictability framework is for issues that come up outside of that process and guidance to the standing IRT. In the report we called it a standing IRT, but that seems to be confusing so we should change the name. Could call it a “gateway” to decide what is policy and what is not, and only looking at non-policy issues. -- Need to be more conscious of the need for predictability for third party interests. We use the term “affected parties” for that reason. -- WG needs to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe a Post Application Advisory Team. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

2 1

Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Monday, 6 May 2019 at 15:00 UTC
by Steve Chan May 3, 2019

May 3, 2019

Dear WG members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 6 May 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Draft Agenda: Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…) Continued: 2.2.2 Predictability / 2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds AOB Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a sort of catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps). If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 April 2019
by Julie Hedlund May 1, 2019

May 1, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 30 April 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: -- Staff will check on the ICANN Board response to the GAC advice in the Helsinki Communique’ on new gTLDs. -- WG to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe “Post Application Advisory Team”. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsX…) 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish -- First bullet: replace “rounds” with “procedures”. 2.2.1.c.1: The Working Group recommends no changes to the existing policy calling for subsequent application rounds introduced in an ongoing, orderly, timely and predictable manner. -- Support from most commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: -- GAC Advice and BC: Support for new rounds but no rounds started until reviews (CCT-RT) are complete. Need to do a cost-benefit analysis before starting new round. -- WG is taking into consideration the CCT-RT recommendations. Discussion: -- Policy does not have a demand component. -- Action Item: Board response to GAC Advice in the Helskinki Communique’. -- Note that the CCT-RT did have an economic study done by the Analysis Group, although perhaps not a full cost-benefit analysis. -- Concerns with maintaining the current policy unless there are objections. -- Unless there is a consensus on changing precedent we should stay on the same path. -- Can build on what we have learned, but hard to do analysis on what people might want. -- If the WG wants to request for an assessment to be done that will have to be approved by the Council. -- Calling for rounds introduced in an ongoing orderly timely and predictable manner support came from pretty much every group that responded in public comments to the Initial Report. -- We have some qualifications from the GAC. 2.2.1.e.1: The 2007 Final Report noted that success metrics would be developed around the New gTLD Program. What are some specific metrics that the program should be measured against? -- Support from most commenters. New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: ALAC, BRG, BC, RySG – New Ideas Discussion: -- Good proposals for different types of metrics. -- Need to define what we mean by success; CCT-RT referred that issue to the SubPro WG. -- Questions and issues in the CCT-RT could put some of these issues to rest. -- This WG could come up with a half dozen categories (elements of the program) and develop definitions of success for those – or develop targets, which is a less loaded word. -- Good conversation to continue on email. -- You could have a high-level structure from the 2012 round (to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS), then create specific targets within that structure within that framework. 2.2.2 Predictability -- Support from most commenters -- BC/RySG/IPC/ALAC (in response to e.1): New Idea - The Standing IRT must be representative of the community, but must also allow for the appointment of experts where needed. New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations -- ICANN Org: Concerns/New Ideas Discussion: -- Can things in the model be improved so that you can support it? If not, what takes its place? -- Don’t think it’s in our authority to replace the GNSO policy process. -- We're not changing any of the policies or processes that have been established. -- Changes to policies after the launch need to go through the GNSO policy process; the predictability framework is for issues that come up outside of that process and guidance to the standing IRT. In the report we called it a standing IRT, but that seems to be confusing so we should change the name. Could call it a “gateway” to decide what is policy and what is not, and only looking at non-policy issues. -- Need to be more conscious of the need for predictability for third party interests. We use the term “affected parties” for that reason. -- WG needs to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe a Post Application Advisory Team.

7 9