January 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 13 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 9, 2020

Jan. 9, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 13 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 January 2020
by Emily Barabas Jan. 9, 2020

Jan. 9, 2020

Hi Anne, Thanks for your question. Minority views are discussed in Section 3.6. For ease of reference, here is an excerpt of the relevant language: Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). Kind regards, Emily From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2020 at 23:57 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 January 2020 Thanks for these notes. Regarding the Action Item to distribute 3.6 of the Working Group guidelines re stating a rationale when Consensus is not achieved, I assume this provision will also cover the option for Minority Statements. If for any reason 3.6 does not cover that option, I would ask that Leadership circulate the language from the WG guidelines that does cover Minority Statements. Just can’t remember the specifics here. Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:40 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 January 2020 [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 7 January 2020. 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/2020-01-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… As a follow-up to the first action item below, the Working Group discussed the principle that the SPIRT should be able to provide input regardless of the level of consensus achieved on recommendations. A Working Group member raised on the call that a rationale should accompany the different perspectives within the SPIRT when there is a division of opinion within the group. Working Group members are encouraged to review the Standard Methodology for Making Decisions in Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines to see if there is sufficient guidance in Section 3.6 about documenting the rationale supporting different views. Section 3.6 is available on page 8 of the WG Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g… [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_d…> Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will circulate Section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines to so that the group can review if it adequately addresses providing a rationale when opinion is divided and there is not consensus. ACTION ITEM: Throughout the document, change “raised” an issue with the SPIRT to “forwarded.” Notes 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * No updates to SOIs 2. Work Plan * This will be discussed at a high level today. A more detailed work plan will be available at the end of this week or beginning of next week. * Original plan was to hold a public comment period at the beginning of this year, with delivery of the Final Report by the end of Q1. This plan will need to be revised. * Documents are under development on each of the topics in this PDP, narrowly focused on areas of agreement with the intent to reach draft final recommendations. * We will have another public comment period. The leadership team has been discussing how to structure this in line with feedback received. * Leadership team recommends making all draft recs available during the public comment period, but seeking feedback on specific areas that have not been out for public comment previously. We can’t stop people from making comments on other areas, but we will make clear that the focus will be on topics for which we are seeking input. * In one of the upcoming meetings, we will go over one of the recommendations documents drafted on one of the “easier” topics so everyone can review approach and format that will put forward for public comment. * Question – if the WG gets feedback from Board, GAC, SSAC or other groups on sections of the Report that we don’t request feedback on, what are we going to do with that? The input could be important and valuable and we don’t want to disenfranchise anyone. * Answer – We will need to make a judgment call in these cases and determine whether the input needs to go through another layer of analysis. * Auction Proceeds Proposed Final Report – this went out for public comment recently. There were three specific questions that commenters were asked to focus on, but people can provide comments on other topics as well. This might be a model to use for SubPro. * Question – how do we distinguish between areas that are new and haven’t been covered (and therefore require public comment) and those that have not? This sounds subjective. * Answer – For example, if the group concludes that we are going to do a series of fixed rounds, and someone puts in a comment supporting first-come, first-served, we are going to respond that we have already considered this and the issue is closed. We don’t want to rehash what has already been reviewed where a decision has been made. * Some WG members supported making sure that new suggestions and ideas are considered. * On areas that are new, like the predictability model or if we come up with something new for contention resolution, we will ask focused questions and encouraging comments. * Staff clarification – draft policy recommendations documents will not all be discussion papers. Discussion papers have been focused on those topics where there needs to be further discussion. For most topics, the intention is to develop draft policy recommendations with rationale, as well limited text on deliberations focused on issues raised since the last public comment. These will follow the format of the WT5 Final Report. * Question – Will CCT-RT recs be discussed in the report with explanation of how the WG is addressing them? * Chart that was reviewed by the group late last year includes state of the discussion on each recommendation and also includes SubPro topics that are applicable to each recommendation. The CCT-RT recs will be addressed in the applicable sections of the final report. * As we review draft recommendations, it’s important for everyone to review the materials in advance. If there are open issues that are not included in the documents, it’s important to raise them on the mailing list before the call where the topic will be covered. 3. Predictability Framework: a. Summary Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecG… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Review of the issue we are trying to address - How do we address changes after the launch of the next round of the New gTLD Program? How do we deal with unanticipated issues? * Review of policy goals - Regarding when the Predictability Framework commences, leadership team believes it should become applicable once the AGB is finalized (as opposed to when the application window opens), but the WG needs to come to agreement on this. * Review of the proposal – recommending the formation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team to review potential changes to the program. b. Proposed Answers to Open Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISH… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> * Review of proposed Role of the SPIRT – staff to correct text to note that the SPIRT comes into play after approval of the AGB. * Staff note – the WG discussed that existing documents might be a basis for materials regarding the SPIRT. This document attempts to pull elements from the IRT Guidelines, CSC and PDP charters, and IoT Guidelines that might be applicable to the SPIRT. * Review of role of the GNSO – Some agreement that the second bullet is redundant and can be removed. * Review of who can raise an issue to the SPIRT and rationale. * Question – does the GNSO Council have a mechanism in which it can provide feedback in a rapid fashion? * Answer – this will be discussed under the next section: how can each of these groups raise an issue? The GNSO may need to tailor some of its existing procedures. One of our recommendations could be that they develop that. * No objections raised to Board and Org having the ability to raise issues. * Regarding the GNSO Council, there are different options of who can raise an issue. This will have an impact on timing. * We shouldn’t develop process for the sake of developing processes. * Comment - There is nothing stopping a PDP or PDP leadership team from asking Council for input. This is a good starting point. There is no reason for Council not to be able to be nimble in responding. The Council Liaison could be a tool that could be more extensively used as well. * Response - It might not be that someone from the SPIRT group is asking Council for input. It would likely be someone from the community raising it to Council, and the issue is raised within Council. The question is about what the threshold will be for Council to take up the issue. * Some support for the fact that raising an issue within Council should be informal and could be raised by a single Councilor. From this perspective, voting and a more formal mechanism is appropriate to determine how the issue is handled – SPIRT or other process/mechanism. * We are starting with the assumption that if the GNSO Council wants to send something to the SPIRT team and determining what happens next. This is the perspective we are coming from. * From one perspective, we would need to state that Council has not elected to use other processes. It is important to be clear about procedures. * For item 5. Suggestion to rephrase the category: “How can each of these groups raise an issue to the SPIRT?” * There are difficult questions about the mechanism of how issues get raised to Council. We need to think about the relationship between SG/Cs and Council, Council Members as representatives of the SG/Cs, etc. We could suggest an email address where community members can raise issues to Council. There is no halfway approach – either you leave it to Council to figure out how to handle or you provide a detailed approach recommending how Council carries this out. * Reminder that the SPIRT is advisory in nature, which may make it less political. * Concern that allowing one Councilor to send an issue to the SPIRT might leave the SPIRT susceptible to lobbying. * Suggestion to pick and propose one of the options under section 5 and put it out for public comment. * Clarification regarding the options available – if a Constituency could raise an issue, the IPC alone could raise the issue (for example). But if a Stakeholder Group is the minimum threshold, it would need to be the whole CSG that is raising the issue to Council. * Review of decision-making process of SPIRT – Clarification – this group should be able to report its advice regardless of the level of support achieved. Text may need clarification. We may not only want to report the divisions of perspectives but also the rationales. * Leadership believes that this is largely covered in Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. * This group is different, less formal than at WG. If the SPIRT group is divided, it needs to be clear why. ACTION ITEM: Leadership will circulate Section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines to so that the group can review if it adequately addresses providing a rationale when opinion is divided and there is not consensus. * Section 7 – review of who receives Advice/Guidance issued by the SPIRT? ACTION ITEM: Throughout the document, change “raised” an issue with the SPIRT to “forwarded.” * Comment regarding section 5 that there should be text that processes should be carried out expeditiously. * The WG will start with section 8 on the next call. c. Process Flow Chart (to be provided) * Item deferred. 4. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort (time permitting): * Item deferred. 5. AOB a. Update from meeting of the ICANN Board/Senior ICANN org management/SubPro leadership/Council leadership * In attendance: Jeff and Cheryl from SubPro; Goran and Cyrus from ICANN org; Keith, Pam, Rafik from Council leadership; Becky and Avri from the Board. * Board wants to be aware of particularly thorny issues that are coming their way and the timing of when issues will reach the Board. * The Board will likely be getting more letters from SO/ACs and other interested parties, and this is a way of opening up communications between the PDP, Org, and Board on handling the issues raised. * ICANN org has set up an executive team to start planning processes to implement next round. * If, for example, the WG expects to put forward a recommendation that is in conflict with GAC Advice, the Board will want to know this. * The goal is to be in closer communication and flag an issues in advance. * If anything of note comes up on these coordination calls in the future, the SubPro Co-Chairs will share with the WG. * Board requested current thinking of the WG on the public comment period as letters from the GAC and ALAC went to the Board. Co-Chairs said that they would talk with the WG and make sure there is agreement on the approach and then share this approach with the Board. * The purpose is to avoid as many surprises as possible through early and regular communication. * GAC is interested in learning in advance how SubPro recommendations may deviate from their advice. This is not something we have started working on but it has been requested. ________________________________ 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

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 09 January 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 9, 2020

Jan. 9, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 09 January at 2000 UTC. 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/2020-01-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Actions: Predictability Framework: ACTION ITEM 1: Look at GNSO Operating Procedures concerning rules for WG and other group membership. ACTION ITEM 2: WG members should review the process flow chart. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Predictability Framework: a. Proposed Answers to Open Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISH… – Start at Section 7 7. Composition of the SPIRT -- Generally taken from the notion of IRTs. -- Emphasize that membership in the group should have representativeness but even more important that the members have some sort of knowledge and experience to tackle unique issues. -- Re: IRTs - One is the minimum. There s nothing that discourages other WG or IOT members from joining SPIRT. -- We may want to sunset that provision after 2-3 years. -- Question: Not clear what the difference is between the SPIRT concept and the IRT concept. Why do we need both? Answer: An IRT comes into existence after a set of policies are approved by the ICANN Board, but its work ends when the policy is implemented, in this case when the final version of the AGB is published. There is no concept of a post launch team -- which is what this is, to be constituted after implementation/launch. -- Question: What value added do we get from the SPIRT concept? Answer: This does not exclude any other mechanism of providing guidance to ICANN Board. It is just a tool for the GNSO Council to deal with issues that arise after the launch of the program. -- Missing an area here about concerns about the SPIRT -- this should be a new section -- that this group would be dominated by the contracted parties. We should also include a 1-year review. -- I agree with Christopher about setting this SPIRT up, not because of the reasons that he puts forth, but because if people can still take their issues to the Board, GAC, etc., I don't see what the point of the SPIRT is. It looks like just another place for people to lobby for post-AGB changes. -- Why not just extend the IRT? -- Requirement for Statement of Participation (last bullet). -- I think the SPIRT is meant to address issues more quickly and in some cases, add special expertise quickly. However, I am very concerned that it not be used to block other existing mechanisms. As heather pointed out, existing mechanisms should be used where possible. These include Input and Guidance. So we don't want a conflict where, for example, CPH votes send it to SPIRT and NCPH votes use GNSO Guidance process. -- I'm luke warm about the notion of the SPIRIT, but I really don't understand why we are being so prescriptive about things like composition, length of service etc. -- Question: Is it mentioned whether participation in SPIRT allows observers?  Or not?  Answer: Might come up when we talk about the issue of confidentiality. -- IMHO, the prescriptiveness comes from trying to solve for various problems, including the ones just raised on this call. -- The original Concept on which we sought public comment was Standing IRT - I think the SPIRT is supposed to be a Standing IRT. public comment went in support of that. -- Nuance for the Predictability Framework: There are two pieces: 1) triage mechanism that helps determine how the issue is resolved; 2) who wields that triage mechanism, in this case it is the SPIRT, the party that is utilizing that framework. -- Is there a less process-bound way to refer policy vs implementation issues to a small team? 8. Additional subject matter expertise -- Generally in the WG Guidelines. -- Preference for subject matter experts to be members. -- Need to make sure that applicants who aren’t part of a stakeholder group could still be members and participate assuming they have the expertise. 9. Length of term of SPIRT members? -- Should be too much emphasis on rapid turnover, but encourage some level of turnover. 10. Role of the SPIRT member (representative vs independent judgement) -- When we have to assess the level of consensus it will be to represent the formal position of the stakeholder group (similar to the EPDP charter). -- Need to be clear when we are saying they are representing the formal positions does that mean that those organizations have to take formal positions? -- The person is expected to represent the known position of the group, it’s not that they have to go back to their groups. -- Shouldn’t we just say that for consensus calls the SPIRT will presume that the members are representing their group’s position. -- Question: Support for members acting in an individual capacity although representing a group? Answer: We should be putting people on here that understand new gTLDs and new gTLD policy -- appoint someone you trust and assume they will do the right thing. -- The SCBO and SSC both have non-Councillors as members. Wonder if we could think about using an existing mechanism rather than creating something new and bespoke for this if we don’t need to. -- If we only look for existing infrastructure then the option for those outside of the GNSO might be lost. -- The GNSO Operating Procedures don’t talk about standing committees in a prescriptive manner. -- Maybe concentrate on the principles that should be adhered to -- the more direct way to achieve this is to concentrate on what it should do, rather than saying who should do it (such as the SPIRT). -- To make things more predictable we are defining how that group will operate. -- So let's word the recommendation that "The Council should form a standing committee to achieve the following: ..."  -- If the group is representative, SOs and ACs can choose to put a Councilor on it or not. It's up the SO/AC. and Cherly and Donna are correct that there must be a way for non-GNSO types to participate and for those unaffiliated with ICANN SOs and ACs.  The group should function like a Standing IRT. -- Perhaps we are getting too much into implementation; instead maybe we should create some principles -- take this up a level. -- Public comment was in support of a standing IRT, but now we are talking about something more than that. -- The public comment process would benefit from prescriptive draft recommendations or questions. -- I’m not opposed to being more specific. Just wanted to float the idea of a higher level approach. I can see the merits of both approaches. Maybe we need to be surgically less specific. ACTION ITEM: Look at GNSO Operating Procedures concerning rules for WG and other group membership. 11. Conflicts of interest procedures -- We had stated that this group should require a more specific statement than the SOIs for WG, such as having additional questions. By way of example, please see the additional questions associated with Auction Proceeds. A more detailed SOI is needed for the SPIRT. 12. Confidentiality obligations -- Support for the activities to be open/transparent, but there is a mechanism for confidentiality. 13. ICANN Staff role and level of participation -- From EPDP Charter. 14. SPIRT Leadership -- From WG Guidelines. 15. Role of Public Comment -- May want to change that. Doesn’t just operate by consensus. It’s supposed to give its advice on the issue. -- Probably need to modify this section. b. Process Flow Chart (attached) ACTION ITEM: WG members should review the process flow chart. 3. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort (time permitting): https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish -- Not necessary possible to implement solutions that enhance every one of these goals. -- Spent time discussing the specific mechanisms. Want to discuss the goals and which are more important than the others. Other goals include: 1. Reduce the risk of “bidding wars” in which the winner ultimately overpays for the TLD. a. Tentative, related goal for discussion: encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD. 1. Reduce collusion, profiteering, and/or speculation, especially as it relates to financial transactions external to the program (Note, while this is not an explicit goal for the mechanisms of last resort, it has been discussed as a motivation for altering the auction mechanism). 2. Increase transparency. 3. Resolve contention more quickly. 4. Increase predictability. 5. Encourage new entrants into the field. Which could include, making it easier to implement “multipliers” for certain types of applicants, such as those eligible for Applicant Support. 1. Increase efficiencies in application evaluation by way of understanding the contention set? Note that some of the terminology may need to be further defined if the above goals are adopted. In order to ensure that recommendations align with goals, it is important for the Working Group to agree on specific objectives. Discussion: -- Concern about the use of the term “collusion” in #2. We will check to see where that term came from. -- Add new #8: “Increase creativity in the resolution of contention sets.” Related: Include as a possible goal that we want to encourage private resolution of contention sets. If we don’t want to do this then creativity may be less important. -- Section is called “other goals” which acknowledges that we’ve maintained the main goals. -- Should produce one set of goals and not call some “other goals”. Continue the numbering from the original goals. -- In terms of goal number 1 -- wondering whether we should consider making it a bit more vague -- “unintended consequences from bidding wars”. Not sure preventing overpaying should be a stated goal.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 09 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 8, 2020

Jan. 8, 2020

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 09 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Predictability Framework: * Proposed Answers to Open Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISH… – Start at Section 8 * Process Flow Chart (attached) 3. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort (time permitting): https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… 4. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 January 2020
by Emily Barabas Jan. 8, 2020

Jan. 8, 2020

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 7 January 2020. 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/2020-01-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr… As a follow-up to the first action item below, the Working Group discussed the principle that the SPIRT should be able to provide input regardless of the level of consensus achieved on recommendations. A Working Group member raised on the call that a rationale should accompany the different perspectives within the SPIRT when there is a division of opinion within the group. Working Group members are encouraged to review the Standard Methodology for Making Decisions in Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines to see if there is sufficient guidance in Section 3.6 about documenting the rationale supporting different views. Section 3.6 is available on page 8 of the WG Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-g… Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will circulate Section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines to so that the group can review if it adequately addresses providing a rationale when opinion is divided and there is not consensus. ACTION ITEM: Throughout the document, change “raised” an issue with the SPIRT to “forwarded.” Notes 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * No updates to SOIs 2. Work Plan * This will be discussed at a high level today. A more detailed work plan will be available at the end of this week or beginning of next week. * Original plan was to hold a public comment period at the beginning of this year, with delivery of the Final Report by the end of Q1. This plan will need to be revised. * Documents are under development on each of the topics in this PDP, narrowly focused on areas of agreement with the intent to reach draft final recommendations. * We will have another public comment period. The leadership team has been discussing how to structure this in line with feedback received. * Leadership team recommends making all draft recs available during the public comment period, but seeking feedback on specific areas that have not been out for public comment previously. We can’t stop people from making comments on other areas, but we will make clear that the focus will be on topics for which we are seeking input. * In one of the upcoming meetings, we will go over one of the recommendations documents drafted on one of the “easier” topics so everyone can review approach and format that will put forward for public comment. * Question – if the WG gets feedback from Board, GAC, SSAC or other groups on sections of the Report that we don’t request feedback on, what are we going to do with that? The input could be important and valuable and we don’t want to disenfranchise anyone. * Answer – We will need to make a judgment call in these cases and determine whether the input needs to go through another layer of analysis. * Auction Proceeds Proposed Final Report – this went out for public comment recently. There were three specific questions that commenters were asked to focus on, but people can provide comments on other topics as well. This might be a model to use for SubPro. * Question – how do we distinguish between areas that are new and haven’t been covered (and therefore require public comment) and those that have not? This sounds subjective. * Answer – For example, if the group concludes that we are going to do a series of fixed rounds, and someone puts in a comment supporting first-come, first-served, we are going to respond that we have already considered this and the issue is closed. We don’t want to rehash what has already been reviewed where a decision has been made. * Some WG members supported making sure that new suggestions and ideas are considered. * On areas that are new, like the predictability model or if we come up with something new for contention resolution, we will ask focused questions and encouraging comments. * Staff clarification – draft policy recommendations documents will not all be discussion papers. Discussion papers have been focused on those topics where there needs to be further discussion. For most topics, the intention is to develop draft policy recommendations with rationale, as well limited text on deliberations focused on issues raised since the last public comment. These will follow the format of the WT5 Final Report. * Question – Will CCT-RT recs be discussed in the report with explanation of how the WG is addressing them? * Chart that was reviewed by the group late last year includes state of the discussion on each recommendation and also includes SubPro topics that are applicable to each recommendation. The CCT-RT recs will be addressed in the applicable sections of the final report. * As we review draft recommendations, it’s important for everyone to review the materials in advance. If there are open issues that are not included in the documents, it’s important to raise them on the mailing list before the call where the topic will be covered. 3. Predictability Framework: a. Summary Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecG… * Review of the issue we are trying to address - How do we address changes after the launch of the next round of the New gTLD Program? How do we deal with unanticipated issues? * Review of policy goals - Regarding when the Predictability Framework commences, leadership team believes it should become applicable once the AGB is finalized (as opposed to when the application window opens), but the WG needs to come to agreement on this. * Review of the proposal – recommending the formation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team to review potential changes to the program. b. Proposed Answers to Open Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISH… * Review of proposed Role of the SPIRT – staff to correct text to note that the SPIRT comes into play after approval of the AGB. * Staff note – the WG discussed that existing documents might be a basis for materials regarding the SPIRT. This document attempts to pull elements from the IRT Guidelines, CSC and PDP charters, and IoT Guidelines that might be applicable to the SPIRT. * Review of role of the GNSO – Some agreement that the second bullet is redundant and can be removed. * Review of who can raise an issue to the SPIRT and rationale. * Question – does the GNSO Council have a mechanism in which it can provide feedback in a rapid fashion? * Answer – this will be discussed under the next section: how can each of these groups raise an issue? The GNSO may need to tailor some of its existing procedures. One of our recommendations could be that they develop that. * No objections raised to Board and Org having the ability to raise issues. * Regarding the GNSO Council, there are different options of who can raise an issue. This will have an impact on timing. * We shouldn’t develop process for the sake of developing processes. * Comment - There is nothing stopping a PDP or PDP leadership team from asking Council for input. This is a good starting point. There is no reason for Council not to be able to be nimble in responding. The Council Liaison could be a tool that could be more extensively used as well. * Response - It might not be that someone from the SPIRT group is asking Council for input. It would likely be someone from the community raising it to Council, and the issue is raised within Council. The question is about what the threshold will be for Council to take up the issue. * Some support for the fact that raising an issue within Council should be informal and could be raised by a single Councilor. From this perspective, voting and a more formal mechanism is appropriate to determine how the issue is handled – SPIRT or other process/mechanism. * We are starting with the assumption that if the GNSO Council wants to send something to the SPIRT team and determining what happens next. This is the perspective we are coming from. * From one perspective, we would need to state that Council has not elected to use other processes. It is important to be clear about procedures. * For item 5. Suggestion to rephrase the category: “How can each of these groups raise an issue to the SPIRT?” * There are difficult questions about the mechanism of how issues get raised to Council. We need to think about the relationship between SG/Cs and Council, Council Members as representatives of the SG/Cs, etc. We could suggest an email address where community members can raise issues to Council. There is no halfway approach – either you leave it to Council to figure out how to handle or you provide a detailed approach recommending how Council carries this out. * Reminder that the SPIRT is advisory in nature, which may make it less political. * Concern that allowing one Councilor to send an issue to the SPIRT might leave the SPIRT susceptible to lobbying. * Suggestion to pick and propose one of the options under section 5 and put it out for public comment. * Clarification regarding the options available – if a Constituency could raise an issue, the IPC alone could raise the issue (for example). But if a Stakeholder Group is the minimum threshold, it would need to be the whole CSG that is raising the issue to Council. * Review of decision-making process of SPIRT – Clarification – this group should be able to report its advice regardless of the level of support achieved. Text may need clarification. We may not only want to report the divisions of perspectives but also the rationales. * Leadership believes that this is largely covered in Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. * This group is different, less formal than at WG. If the SPIRT group is divided, it needs to be clear why. ACTION ITEM: Leadership will circulate Section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines to so that the group can review if it adequately addresses providing a rationale when opinion is divided and there is not consensus. * Section 7 – review of who receives Advice/Guidance issued by the SPIRT? ACTION ITEM: Throughout the document, change “raised” an issue with the SPIRT to “forwarded.” * Comment regarding section 5 that there should be text that processes should be carried out expeditiously. * The WG will start with section 8 on the next call. c. Process Flow Chart (to be provided) * Item deferred. 4. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort (time permitting): * Item deferred. 5. AOB a. Update from meeting of the ICANN Board/Senior ICANN org management/SubPro leadership/Council leadership * In attendance: Jeff and Cheryl from SubPro; Goran and Cyrus from ICANN org; Keith, Pam, Rafik from Council leadership; Becky and Avri from the Board. * Board wants to be aware of particularly thorny issues that are coming their way and the timing of when issues will reach the Board. * The Board will likely be getting more letters from SO/ACs and other interested parties, and this is a way of opening up communications between the PDP, Org, and Board on handling the issues raised. * ICANN org has set up an executive team to start planning processes to implement next round. * If, for example, the WG expects to put forward a recommendation that is in conflict with GAC Advice, the Board will want to know this. * The goal is to be in closer communication and flag an issues in advance. * If anything of note comes up on these coordination calls in the future, the SubPro Co-Chairs will share with the WG. * Board requested current thinking of the WG on the public comment period as letters from the GAC and ALAC went to the Board. Co-Chairs said that they would talk with the WG and make sure there is agreement on the approach and then share this approach with the Board. * The purpose is to avoid as many surprises as possible through early and regular communication. * GAC is interested in learning in advance how SubPro recommendations may deviate from their advice. This is not something we have started working on but it has been requested.

3 2

GNSO Working Group Guidelines and applicability to the SPIRT
by Jeff Neuman Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

All, The language below is from Section 3.6 of the latest version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced…) and is being proposed to guide the work of the SPIRT. To address the question raised by Anne, the Chair must indicate whether there are any minority views regardless of whether there is Full Consensus, Strong support, etc. ************************************** 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations: * Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus. * Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.4 * Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it. * Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless. * Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals. In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s). The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable. Some of the reasons for this might be: * A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur. * It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and Divergence. Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results. Based upon the WG's needs, the Chair may direct that WG participants do not have to have their name explicitly associated with any Full Consensus or Consensus view/position. However, in all other cases and in those cases where a group member represents the minority viewpoint, their name must be explicitly linked, especially in those cases where polls where taken. If a Chartering Organization wishes to deviate from the standard methodology for making decisions or empower the WG to decide its own decision-making methodology it should be affirmatively stated in the WG Charter. Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group and, for this reason, should take place on the designated mailing list to ensure that all Working Group members have the opportunity to fully participate in the consensus process. It is the role of the Chair to designate which level of consensus is reached and announce this designation to the Working Group. Member(s) of the Working Group should be able to challenge the designation of the Chair as part of the Working Group discussion. However, if disagreement persists, members of the WG may use the process set forth below to challenge the designation. If several participants5 in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps sequentially: 1. Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error. 2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair will forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants and in the submission to the liaison. If the liaison(s) supports the Chair's position, the liaison(s) will provide their response to the complainants. The liaison(s) must explain their reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees with the Chair, the liaison will forward the appeal to the CO. Should the complainants disagree with the liaison support of the Chair's determination, the complainants may appeal to the Chair of the CO or their designated representative. If the CO agrees with the complainants' position, the CO should recommend remedial action to the Chair. 3. In the event of any appeal, the CO will attach a statement of the appeal to the WG and/or Board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the CO. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D5C593.DF721E00] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Tuesday, 07 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 7, 2020

Jan. 7, 2020

Dear all, Happy New Year! Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Tuesday, 07 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Work Plan 3. Predictability Framework: * Summary Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecG… * Proposed Answers to Open Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISH… * Process Flow Chart (to be provided) 4. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort (time permitting): https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVT… 5. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

6 5

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call | Tuesday, 07 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Jan. 6, 2020

Jan. 6, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 07 January 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/pgRxBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Andrea

1 0

Difference of value at application time x further down the road
by Rubens Kuhl Jan. 2, 2020

Jan. 2, 2020

In one of the arguments against submitting a bid at application time, it was said that at that time the perception of asset value would be different than after reveal day or any other milestone. The point I will make here is that this doesn't make one time better than the other for settling the contention, since ICANN is a non-profit. The usual reasoning for giving the asset to the highest bidder is that it's a proxy for one with the better usage of the asset. But that only requires relative gauging of the contenders; if they are bidding with the same information level, at that time the best project would still be selected by the method. So, postponing the decision could cause ICANN to make more money or less money, depending on what the new information brought to the table, but since ICANN mission is not to profit from asset allocation, we shouldn't care about it. Other factors might play into the decision, but this shouldn't be one of them. Rubens

2 2