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

Actions/Discussion Notes: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG 24 April 2018
by Julie Hedlund April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 April 2018. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately. For reference see also the attached referenced document. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items: WG members should review the Initial Report excerpts and provide comments/edits in email to the WG list, with references to the relevant sections. WG Co-Chairs will suggest some language to make it clear that a consensus call was not held, and put it out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement. Notes: 1. Initial Report Excerpts Applicant Guidebook: Page 4 -- More user friendly. -- Put online. -- Terms of use should be finalized. -- Page 5: Bullets – 6th and 7th are supported. -- Discussed in Work Track 1. Should know the source of the material, such as which Work Track. -- Taking all WG input on the Initial Report. Use this as a sanity check to see if there is anything we have missed. Oversight and issue we need to pick up on. -- Leadership will review all comments. -- In Work Track 4 many members said the business of strings on the name collision side – strings that fit that category should be identified early on so that applicants don’t apply for them. In terms of the AGB you might end up with a pre-qualification stage where you could suggest a string, but not do a full application. Need to see the language from Work Track 4. -- Only a proposal to do a study on name collisions and if there is a study that might fit better under things like reserved names. Look at Work Track 4 language to see where there are dependencies. 1.4.2: Communications: Page 7 -- Nothing about a global communication effort --- need for a global communications campaign. More focused on applicant support -- 1.5.4 . -- What do we mean by “global communication effort”? Worldwide plan to ensure that internationally it is known that we have this program. -- Are we saying we need a constant communications period for every round? -- It depends on the periodicity of the round. 1.4.3: Systems: Page 10 -- No policy but implementation guidance. -- What do you mean by “live support”? Answer: Online support option. Overall Suggestions: -- Need to change the phrasing “the Work Track agreed”. Rarely a full agreement, so how will we express that? Suggestion is to say, “the general understanding of the Work Track/Working Group was...” -- How to express areas where there was no consensus? Not operating on formal definitions. Important to point out that there have not been formal consensus calls for these recommendations. Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines defines levels of consensus. -- Can’t say “the Work Track agreed” because no consensus call was held per the Working Group Guidelines. -- Suggest some language to make it clear that we did not do a consensus call. -- Put out to the list for review examples of how we got to a general type of agreement. Something that is in between agreement and observation. The Work Track leaders were pretty careful to get the sense of the group. -- This report has been developed based on CC1 and CC2 comments, transcripts and notes. The leadership team is trying to be innovative. Consensus calls are not happening now. 2. Next Meetings/Steps: -- May Calls: Will need first two weeks in May to continue to finalize the Initial Report. -- Future systems: Start rolling out testing of Adobe Connect on the 3rd of May. Blog post and looking for more feedback on a survey: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next. -- ICANN62: Likely to be three sessions on Monday, 25 June, and one on Thursday, 28 June.

1 0

Recording, attendance & WebEx chat from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 24 April 2018 03:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear All, Please find the attendance and WebEx chat of the call attached to this email. The MP3 recording is below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 24 April 2018 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/1S_8B MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-24apr18-en.mp3 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

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 24 April 2018 at 03:00 UTC
by Steve Chan April 24, 2018

April 24, 2018

Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Tuesday (Monday for some) 24 April 2018 at 03:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued) AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Pre-Launch Activities, which includes three (3) topics. Note that the extract includes a full listing of the topics, which hopefully helps provide context for this particular section, but also provides a preview of what else can be expected to be distributed in the near future. Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +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/

2 1

FW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018
by Steve Chan April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear WG Members, You may be aware that Work Track 4 has sought to investigate ways in which the Financial and Technical & Operational questions could be improved, with the goal of reducing the number of clarifying questions that would be needed in the future. ICANN Org has consolidated materials (FAQs, Knowledge Articles, Reference Materials, and Supplemental Notes) and just recently made them available to Work Track 4 here: https://community.icann.org/x/gggFBQ. As the full WG may find these materials useful as well, we are making you aware of their availability. Please see the email thread below for additional detail. If you have any questions, please let me know. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 4:42 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear WT4 Members, Please see a subsequent response from ICANN org in support of the WT4 request below. “As a follow-on to the March 20th, 2018 message, the Supplemental Notes materials referenced in that message are now located at https://community.icann.org/x/gggFBQ. In addition, we are providing WT4 with FAQs, Knowledge Articles, and Reference Materials previously published in the SugarCRM knowledge base. These materials are historical information that ICANN org is providing to WT4 to inform PDP deliberations.” Once you navigate to the link above, you will see that there are separate Wiki page for FAQs, Knowledge Articles, Reference Materials, and Supplemental Notes. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 4:05 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear WT4 Members, Per the WT’s request to ICANN Org in the email below, please find their response directly below and information/resources compiled to date attached. The information/resources can also be found on the topic specific Wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw Best, Steve ** As per your request sent via Steve Chan on 9 February 2018, attached is a compilation of existing and published information and resources regarding application questions and clarifying questions. Please note that the Supplemental Notes information referenced in the document is not yet available. This information was hosted in our old CRM system, which has been decommissioned. It is taking longer than we thought to bring this system back up online, but we continue to work with our IT team on this. We will provide you with the links to the Supplemental Notes for all application questions once the system is back up online. In the meantime, we are sending you all other information and resources relevant to this request. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 4:41 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear WT4 Members, For those that may have missed the last call, as noted below in the action items, it was decided that in relation to WT4’s request for data related to clarifying questions, it would be pursuing option 1, “Compile and share existing information and resources regarding application questions and clarifications.” Please see a fuller description here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735969/ICANN%20Org%20Res… Note, this does not preclude WT4 from seeking additional clarifying question information it deems necessary, which could include options in the letter referenced above and/or other options. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:08 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 - 05 February 2018 Dear Work Track members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today. 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 or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/ERohB. Slides are attached for reference and some chat room excerpts are included below. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes and Action Items: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Track 4 – 05 February 2018 Action Item 1) CQ Options: Agreement for Option 1: Compile existing info regarding questions and CQs (what was done for PIRR); but doesn't preclude other options; consider survey question for the survey of applicants in option 5 ………….

1 0

ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Nathalie Peregrine April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear all: Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Best regards, David https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: The Forensics Investigation With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: 1. Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or 2. Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. Community Feedback and Next Steps For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: 1. We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. 2. Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. I look forward to your comments! David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Remove, unsubscribe
by Denise Michel April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

Please remove me from this group and unsubscribe me from this email list. Thanks Denise Michel Domain Name System Strategy & Management Facebook, Inc. denisemichel(a)fb.com<mailto:denisemichel@fb.com>

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2
by Steve Chan April 18, 2018

April 18, 2018

Dear Anne, Please take a look at section 1.2.2.e, where the draft Predictability Framework can be found, and then specifically, “Fundamental, Possibly Policy-level Changes.” As you noted, the Predictability Framework, is in part, intended to help the Standing IRT determine how to triage issues that arise after program launch (i.e., applications are being accepted). In the event that there are policy implications for the new issue, the Standing IRT could recommend to the GNSO Council that one of the GNSO processes referenced below be initiated. The Standing IRT does not have the power to initiate the processes themselves. This language is currently contained in the draft Initial Report excerpt, in circumstances where the Standing IRT determines that the issue represents new policy: The standing IRT will make a determination that additional consideration is needed. For instance, a request could be sent to the GNSO Council to consider invoking the GNSO Input Process (GIP), GNSO Guidance Process (GGP), or the GNSO Expedited PDP Process (EPDP). Also, as you mentioned, the new GNSO processes can be initiated during the implementation of the policy (i.e., when the IRT is utilizing the CPIF) and/or after the next wave of applications is being accepted. The Predictability Framework does not seek to change any of that. Hopefully this is helpful. I see your subsequent email that just arrived and hopefully this helps to respond to that email as well. Best, Steve From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 8:19 AM To: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org'" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Hi Jeff - attempting to be more concrete – it seems that in Item g. of the Overarching Issues section of the Predictability Framework (which currently says there are no other dependencies within ICANN) this needs to be revised to say: Commenters are referred to the existing GNSO Operating Procedures designed to address issues arising and changes needed after the policy development phase as detailed at the links below. The Working Group is seeking feedback on how the proposed Predictability Framework would be integrated with these GNSO processes: The above should include the live links to these GNSO Operating Procedures Annexes. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:42 PM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 I am in favor of standing IRT. If you are saying the Predictability Framework is used by Standing IRT to help it determine what process to recommend to GNSO, then I get it. That is not what the current draft says. You had said that the processes I am describing end at launch. They definitely do not end at launch. They are available anytime the GNSO or the Board wants to use them. Again, what is not clear is the interaction between the proposed Predictability Framework and those processes and certainly GNSO has the final say as to which matter arising either before or after launch fits in which box. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:37 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 To be honest, I am trying to understand what the confusion is. What you sent below are the thresholds for the GNSO Council when they elect to use the Expedited PDP or the Guidance Process. What we are talking about here is setting up a standing IRT after the Applicant Guidebook is issued and the new gTLD Program has again launched. If an issue arises, it will be brought to the attention of this standing IRT. Using the guidance in the CPIF as well as in the Predictability Framework they will make a recommendation as to whether this is (a) an issue that should go through the GNSO, (b) should be an issue worked out between Applicants and ICANN Org, (c) should be worked out by ICANN Org alone, or (d) follow some other process. If this standing IRT recommends option (a), then the GNSO will decide whether it should be a full pdp, expedited pdp, GGP or something else. It would help if others weigh in. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:27 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Jeff, there is definitely some confusion going on here. The processes I am describing are in fact baked into the ByLaws and there are specific voting thresholds etc. They do not appear at all at the CPIF link you sent to me but they are real. Here is a summary of the Board resolution ICANN Board Resolution Text: Adopted on: 28 September 2015 Summary: Resolved (2015.09.28.16), the Board approves the amendments to the ICANN Bylaws Article X, section 3-9 as posted for public comment addressing the new GNSO voting thresholds resulting from the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP). Resolved (2105.09.28.17), the Board approves the amendments to ICANN Bylaws Annex A as posted for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bylaws-proposed-amendments-gnso… [PDF, 656 KB]), creating a new Annex A-1 that outlines the GNSO EPDP. Resolved (2015.09.28.18), the Board approves the amendments to ICANN Bylaws Annex A as posted for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bylaws-proposed-amendments-gnso… [PDF, 656 KB]), creating a new Annex A-2 that outlines the GNSO GGP. (See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.… for further details) Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:24 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Anne, I think your recollection of the CPIF and what it actually states are not necessarily aligned the way I read it. Look at page 3 in following Document (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa…) Under Section IV, in the chart and the text below, there IS a definitive End Date for the IRT in the “Analyze and Design” stage. In fact, in the chart it says in red “The IRT concludes work”. After that there is the actual implementation phase followed by the “Policy Effective Date GDD to Compliance Handoff”. The “Predictability Framework” we are proposing starts at the point in which that diagram states “IRT CONCLUDES WORK.” It is quite possible (as happened during the 2012 round) that additional issues will arise after the original IRT concludes its work and even after the “Policy Effective Date”. It is for those issues (which could be operational) that we are talking about. In the last round, that would have included things like (1). Changing the contract AFTER Guidebook Release, (2) Changing from Digital Archery to Priority Draw (again After the release of the Guidebook), (3) Changing of PDT Testing Requirements (yet again after the Guidebook was released), etc…… I hope that looking at the chart and the explanations below the chart at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… makes it a little clearer. Perhaps we can add a chart to our report as well. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:59 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Sorry – I meant by GNSO Council at its April 26 meeting. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:46 AM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Just to emphasize this “post launch aspect” of the existing tools, the Board and the GNSO are seriously considering the use of an Expedited PDP to address GDPR issues and accreditation. The Expedited PDP procedure is anticipated to take 360 days. This will be discussed by the Board in more detail at its April 26 meeting. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 10:47 AM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Thanks Jeff. Mostly agree with the tweaks but I honestly still do not understand the notion that “implementation phase ends when the program is launched”. That was not at all what was discussed in the Policy and Implementation Working Group. In fact, there are provisions that call for reconvening of IRT. So the main question I am trying to address in order to avoid a conflict between the GNSO Input, Guidance, and Expedited PDP processes is: When does this Predictability Framework kick in? In fact, the case studies done by P &I WG were virtually all post-launch of the 2012 program if “launch” is tied to receiving applications. The intent of GNSO Input, Guidance, and Expedited PDP framework was that it exists well beyond launch. That is why I have always been confused by this discussion and the lack of correlation between the two remedies. So I call Predictability Framework a fourth mechanism because you call policy number 1, implementation number 2 and Predictability Framework number 3. The policy and implementation Working Group determined through its case studies that when issues arise during implementation (including after launch, e.g. name collisions and RPM issues), it is fruitless to try to determine whether the issue involved is either policy or implementation, but that the remedy is to make sure that if enough people believe the issue involves some controversy, we need find a way to get it back to the GNSO. (This work actually all resulted from your letter to the Board objecting to the implementation of the Strawman Solution without coming back to the GNSO for advice.) Staff commented they wanted direction and didn’t want to be in the middle of this controversy. In fact, it was Marika who pointed out that nobody should waste time trying to determine whether the issue was a policy issue or an implementation issue. (You will recall Fadi said it was implementation.) This particular issue may have been pre-launch but many other case studies we reviewed were not pre-launch. So to my mind, your examples in the chart are confusing because several of them would clearly be covered by GNSO Input, Guidance, or Expedited PDP procedures which can easily kick in post-launch. But – to answer the question about “fourth”: Policy Implementation (which we have seen can involve policy issues) CPIF – including GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP procedures where issues arise (GNSO determines how serious the issue is) Predictability Framework – but several of the items in the chart actually fit in an existing CPIF process. (this is why I say “fourth”) I don’t think calling this “changes to operations” actually creates a different category from those that were considered by the Policy & Implementation Working Group. “Changes to operations” is just another word for “implementation” as nearly as I can tell. In other words, there are already existing mechanisms to deal with many of the examples given in the chart – as enumerated in Item 3. If there are Items we want to back out of the CPIF existing mechanisms or if we truly believe there is a timing difference, that needs to be further illuminated. Yes – this was discussed on many calls and the Report should reflect those discussions. Thanks for your thoughtful responses. We have to be clear with the Community and we don’t want these same questions coming up at the Board level. They need to be resolved here. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:21 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Anne, Thanks for the thorough comments. I have renamed the e-mail Chain to reflect the Section of the Report and give my thoughts: Comment from Anne: Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”). In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. Response from Jeff: Good Suggestions. Can I offer the following slight tweaks: “Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of consensus recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented approved the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”) {footnote to Framework} a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase of Consensus Policies. This that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP {Insert Footnote to CPIF where definitions can be found for these terms}. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”).” Comment from Anne: In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. Response from Jeff: Agree with that change. Comment from Anne: In the section “Anticipated Outcome”, please add the following after the first sentence: “The existing CPIF also recognizes this fact and provides for three mechanisms that mandate a process for additional advice where issues arise.” However, many in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are seeking to establish a supplemental framework (designed to apply when implementation is complete) which, even in the event of changes, etc etc.” Response from Jeff: I think the second paragraph in that section along with the expansion of the discussion in the next section “Details of the Predictability Framework” does exactly what you recommend. Do you disagree? Comment from Anne: In the last sentence in that section on “Anticipated Outcome”, the use of the term “after program launch” is unclear. “Launch” is a clear term as to a particular TLD. Acceptance of applications could be considered “launch” of the next round, but at that time, there would likely still be an IRT. What exactly do we mean by “implementation is considered complete” and who makes that determination? Response from Jeff: In the “Details of the Predictability Framework” Section, under Phase 3 we state: “For the purposes of the New gTLD Program, the effective date may better be considered as the date of program/Applicant Guidebook adoption by the ICANN Board or the opening of the application window.” How about we do the following: a. Put a footnote in the “Anticipated Outcome” section pointing to where we define “Launch”. b. Make it clear in the sentence referenced in Phase 3 above is our proposed definition of “Launch” and c. Add a question in the Feedback section that asks for comment on our definition of Launch. Comment from Anne: In the Section “Details of the Predictability Framework”, please Delete a portion of the second sentence of this section after the word, “ambiguities” and insert the following: “The GNSO proposed and the Board adopted a process whereby the GNSO could provide additional input with respect to various issues which might arise in the implementation phase”. Then begin the new sentence. “The WG is considering proposing the addition of a fourth element to be known as the ‘Predictability Framework” etc etc. (No need for underlining in the actual text – I show this only for emphasis on the requested changes.) Response from Jeff: I am a little confused as to why you are referring to it as a fourth element. The first element is policy development. The second is implementation (as covered by the CPIF). The Implementation Phase ends when the program is launched. Therefore, the third is this “Predictability Framework.” What am I missing? The Predictability Framework which envisions setting up a Standing IRT can refer things back to Phase 1 or Phase 2 at their discretion, but I re-read the CPIF and it does not necessarily apply once there is a launch of a program and changes to operations may need to be made. That is why we are creating this Framework in the first place as discussed on the numerous call. That said, I have no issue adding the work “considering” before the word “proposing” in that first paragraph. Comment from Anne: Add the following to list of questions for feedback: How do you see the proposed Predictability Framework interacting with the existing CPIF procedures known as GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP? In other words, when would these processes be utilized and when would application of the Predictability Framework make more sense? Response from Jeff: Makes sense. We will work that in. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw The following additions/changes are needed to avoid the conflict with existing ICANN Board adopted policy in this arena: Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”). In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. In the section “Anticipated Outcome”, please add the following after the first sentence: “The existing CPIF also recognizes this fact and provides for three mechanisms that mandate a process for additional advice where issues arise.” However, many in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are seeking to establish a supplemental framework (designed to apply when implementation is complete) which, even in the event of changes, etc etc.” In the last sentence in that section on “Anticipated Outcome”, the use of the term “after program launch” is unclear. “Launch” is a clear term as to a particular TLD. Acceptance of applications could be considered “launch” of the next round, but at that time, there would likely still be an IRT. What exactly do we mean by “implementation is considered complete” and who makes that determination? In the Section “Details of the Predictability Framework”, please Delete a portion of the second sentence of this section after the word, “ambiguities” and insert the following: “The GNSO proposed and the Board adopted a process whereby the GNSO could provide additional input with respect to various issues which might arise in the implementation phase”. Then begin the new sentence. “The WG is considering proposing the addition of a fourth element to be known as the ‘Predictability Framework” etc etc. (No need for underlining in the actual text – I show this only for emphasis on the requested changes.) In the Section entitled “What specific questions are the PDP WG seeking feedback on?”, please add the following question: How do you see the proposed Predictability Framework interacting with the existing CPIF procedures known as GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP? In other words, when would these processes be utilized and when would application of the Predictability Framework make more sense? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 8:39 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued) AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Overarching Issues, which includes eight (8) topics. Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +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[gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO[twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/[facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/[gnso.icann.org] 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. 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

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] [Ext] RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2
by Steve Chan April 18, 2018

April 18, 2018

Dear Anne, Jeff, All, An important aspect of the Predictability Framework, as currently envisioned, is that it is not intended in any way to supplant or contradict the new GNSO processes. Rather, it attempts to provide some level of guidance for determining what sorts of issues in the New gTLD Program may in fact warrant utilizing those new GNSO processes. I would also note that Predictability Framework would have no bearing on the possible utilization of the GNSO processes during the IRT/CPIF phase as well. Hopefully this is helpful. Best, Steve From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 12:23 PM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman(a)lrrc.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan(a)icann.org>, "'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org'" <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Anne, I think your recollection of the CPIF and what it actually states are not necessarily aligned the way I read it. Look at page 3 in following Document (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa…) Under Section IV, in the chart and the text below, there IS a definitive End Date for the IRT in the “Analyze and Design” stage. In fact, in the chart it says in red “The IRT concludes work”. After that there is the actual implementation phase followed by the “Policy Effective Date GDD to Compliance Handoff”. The “Predictability Framework” we are proposing starts at the point in which that diagram states “IRT CONCLUDES WORK.” It is quite possible (as happened during the 2012 round) that additional issues will arise after the original IRT concludes its work and even after the “Policy Effective Date”. It is for those issues (which could be operational) that we are talking about. In the last round, that would have included things like (1). Changing the contract AFTER Guidebook Release, (2) Changing from Digital Archery to Priority Draw (again After the release of the Guidebook), (3) Changing of PDT Testing Requirements (yet again after the Guidebook was released), etc…… I hope that looking at the chart and the explanations below the chart at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… makes it a little clearer. Perhaps we can add a chart to our report as well. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:59 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan(a)icann.org>; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Sorry – I meant by GNSO Council at its April 26 meeting. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:46 AM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Just to emphasize this “post launch aspect” of the existing tools, the Board and the GNSO are seriously considering the use of an Expedited PDP to address GDPR issues and accreditation. The Expedited PDP procedure is anticipated to take 360 days. This will be discussed by the Board in more detail at its April 26 meeting. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 10:47 AM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Thanks Jeff. Mostly agree with the tweaks but I honestly still do not understand the notion that “implementation phase ends when the program is launched”. That was not at all what was discussed in the Policy and Implementation Working Group. In fact, there are provisions that call for reconvening of IRT. So the main question I am trying to address in order to avoid a conflict between the GNSO Input, Guidance, and Expedited PDP processes is: When does this Predictability Framework kick in? In fact, the case studies done by P &I WG were virtually all post-launch of the 2012 program if “launch” is tied to receiving applications. The intent of GNSO Input, Guidance, and Expedited PDP framework was that it exists well beyond launch. That is why I have always been confused by this discussion and the lack of correlation between the two remedies. So I call Predictability Framework a fourth mechanism because you call policy number 1, implementation number 2 and Predictability Framework number 3. The policy and implementation Working Group determined through its case studies that when issues arise during implementation (including after launch, e.g. name collisions and RPM issues), it is fruitless to try to determine whether the issue involved is either policy or implementation, but that the remedy is to make sure that if enough people believe the issue involves some controversy, we need find a way to get it back to the GNSO. (This work actually all resulted from your letter to the Board objecting to the implementation of the Strawman Solution without coming back to the GNSO for advice.) Staff commented they wanted direction and didn’t want to be in the middle of this controversy. In fact, it was Marika who pointed out that nobody should waste time trying to determine whether the issue was a policy issue or an implementation issue. (You will recall Fadi said it was implementation.) This particular issue may have been pre-launch but many other case studies we reviewed were not pre-launch. So to my mind, your examples in the chart are confusing because several of them would clearly be covered by GNSO Input, Guidance, or Expedited PDP procedures which can easily kick in post-launch. But – to answer the question about “fourth”: Policy Implementation (which we have seen can involve policy issues) CPIF – including GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP procedures where issues arise (GNSO determines how serious the issue is) Predictability Framework – but several of the items in the chart actually fit in an existing CPIF process. (this is why I say “fourth”) I don’t think calling this “changes to operations” actually creates a different category from those that were considered by the Policy & Implementation Working Group. “Changes to operations” is just another word for “implementation” as nearly as I can tell. In other words, there are already existing mechanisms to deal with many of the examples given in the chart – as enumerated in Item 3. If there are Items we want to back out of the CPIF existing mechanisms or if we truly believe there is a timing difference, that needs to be further illuminated. Yes – this was discussed on many calls and the Report should reflect those discussions. Thanks for your thoughtful responses. We have to be clear with the Community and we don’t want these same questions coming up at the Board level. They need to be resolved here. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:21 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Anne, Thanks for the thorough comments. I have renamed the e-mail Chain to reflect the Section of the Report and give my thoughts: Comment from Anne: Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”). In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. Response from Jeff: Good Suggestions. Can I offer the following slight tweaks: “Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of consensus recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented approved the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”) {footnote to Framework} a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase of Consensus Policies. This that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP {Insert Footnote to CPIF where definitions can be found for these terms}. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”).” Comment from Anne: In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. Response from Jeff: Agree with that change. Comment from Anne: In the section “Anticipated Outcome”, please add the following after the first sentence: “The existing CPIF also recognizes this fact and provides for three mechanisms that mandate a process for additional advice where issues arise.” However, many in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are seeking to establish a supplemental framework (designed to apply when implementation is complete) which, even in the event of changes, etc etc.” Response from Jeff: I think the second paragraph in that section along with the expansion of the discussion in the next section “Details of the Predictability Framework” does exactly what you recommend. Do you disagree? Comment from Anne: In the last sentence in that section on “Anticipated Outcome”, the use of the term “after program launch” is unclear. “Launch” is a clear term as to a particular TLD. Acceptance of applications could be considered “launch” of the next round, but at that time, there would likely still be an IRT. What exactly do we mean by “implementation is considered complete” and who makes that determination? Response from Jeff: In the “Details of the Predictability Framework” Section, under Phase 3 we state: “For the purposes of the New gTLD Program, the effective date may better be considered as the date of program/Applicant Guidebook adoption by the ICANN Board or the opening of the application window.” How about we do the following: a. Put a footnote in the “Anticipated Outcome” section pointing to where we define “Launch”. b. Make it clear in the sentence referenced in Phase 3 above is our proposed definition of “Launch” and c. Add a question in the Feedback section that asks for comment on our definition of Launch. Comment from Anne: In the Section “Details of the Predictability Framework”, please Delete a portion of the second sentence of this section after the word, “ambiguities” and insert the following: “The GNSO proposed and the Board adopted a process whereby the GNSO could provide additional input with respect to various issues which might arise in the implementation phase”. Then begin the new sentence. “The WG is considering proposing the addition of a fourth element to be known as the ‘Predictability Framework” etc etc. (No need for underlining in the actual text – I show this only for emphasis on the requested changes.) Response from Jeff: I am a little confused as to why you are referring to it as a fourth element. The first element is policy development. The second is implementation (as covered by the CPIF). The Implementation Phase ends when the program is launched. Therefore, the third is this “Predictability Framework.” What am I missing? The Predictability Framework which envisions setting up a Standing IRT can refer things back to Phase 1 or Phase 2 at their discretion, but I re-read the CPIF and it does not necessarily apply once there is a launch of a program and changes to operations may need to be made. That is why we are creating this Framework in the first place as discussed on the numerous call. That said, I have no issue adding the work “considering” before the word “proposing” in that first paragraph. Comment from Anne: Add the following to list of questions for feedback: How do you see the proposed Predictability Framework interacting with the existing CPIF procedures known as GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP? In other words, when would these processes be utilized and when would application of the Predictability Framework make more sense? Response from Jeff: Makes sense. We will work that in. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw The following additions/changes are needed to avoid the conflict with existing ICANN Board adopted policy in this arena: Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”). In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. In the section “Anticipated Outcome”, please add the following after the first sentence: “The existing CPIF also recognizes this fact and provides for three mechanisms that mandate a process for additional advice where issues arise.” However, many in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are seeking to establish a supplemental framework (designed to apply when implementation is complete) which, even in the event of changes, etc etc.” In the last sentence in that section on “Anticipated Outcome”, the use of the term “after program launch” is unclear. “Launch” is a clear term as to a particular TLD. Acceptance of applications could be considered “launch” of the next round, but at that time, there would likely still be an IRT. What exactly do we mean by “implementation is considered complete” and who makes that determination? In the Section “Details of the Predictability Framework”, please Delete a portion of the second sentence of this section after the word, “ambiguities” and insert the following: “The GNSO proposed and the Board adopted a process whereby the GNSO could provide additional input with respect to various issues which might arise in the implementation phase”. Then begin the new sentence. “The WG is considering proposing the addition of a fourth element to be known as the ‘Predictability Framework” etc etc. (No need for underlining in the actual text – I show this only for emphasis on the requested changes.) In the Section entitled “What specific questions are the PDP WG seeking feedback on?”, please add the following question: How do you see the proposed Predictability Framework interacting with the existing CPIF procedures known as GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP? In other words, when would these processes be utilized and when would application of the Predictability Framework make more sense? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com[lrrc.com] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 8:39 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. Agenda Review Roll Call/SOIs Review of the Initial Report (continued) AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Overarching Issues, which includes eight (8) topics. Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (gnso-secs(a)icann.org) Best, Steve Steven Chan  Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536  steve.chan(a)icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +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[gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO[twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/[facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/[gnso.icann.org] 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.

4 4

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
by Jamie Baxter April 18, 2018

April 18, 2018

4 4

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Predictability - Section 1.2.2
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne April 18, 2018

April 18, 2018

Hi Jeff - attempting to be more concrete – it seems that in Item g. of the Overarching Issues section of the Predictability Framework (which currently says there are no other dependencies within ICANN) this needs to be revised to say: Commenters are referred to the existing GNSO Operating Procedures designed to address issues arising and changes needed after the policy development phase as detailed at the links below. The Working Group is seeking feedback on how the proposed Predictability Framework would be integrated with these GNSO processes: [cid:image006.png@01D3D6ED.DBFDE880] The above should include the live links to these GNSO Operating Procedures Annexes. Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D3D6ED.F90B31D0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:42 PM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 I am in favor of standing IRT. If you are saying the Predictability Framework is used by Standing IRT to help it determine what process to recommend to GNSO, then I get it. That is not what the current draft says. You had said that the processes I am describing end at launch. They definitely do not end at launch. They are available anytime the GNSO or the Board wants to use them. Again, what is not clear is the interaction between the proposed Predictability Framework and those processes and certainly GNSO has the final say as to which matter arising either before or after launch fits in which box. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3D6EC.FAD3D950] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:37 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 To be honest, I am trying to understand what the confusion is. What you sent below are the thresholds for the GNSO Council when they elect to use the Expedited PDP or the Guidance Process. What we are talking about here is setting up a standing IRT after the Applicant Guidebook is issued and the new gTLD Program has again launched. If an issue arises, it will be brought to the attention of this standing IRT. Using the guidance in the CPIF as well as in the Predictability Framework they will make a recommendation as to whether this is (a) an issue that should go through the GNSO, (b) should be an issue worked out between Applicants and ICANN Org, (c) should be worked out by ICANN Org alone, or (d) follow some other process. If this standing IRT recommends option (a), then the GNSO will decide whether it should be a full pdp, expedited pdp, GGP or something else. It would help if others weigh in. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:27 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Jeff, there is definitely some confusion going on here. The processes I am describing are in fact baked into the ByLaws and there are specific voting thresholds etc. They do not appear at all at the CPIF link you sent to me but they are real. Here is a summary of the Board resolution ICANN Board Resolution Text: Adopted on: 28 September 2015 Summary: Resolved (2015.09.28.16), the Board approves the amendments to the ICANN Bylaws Article X, section 3-9 as posted for public comment addressing the new GNSO voting thresholds resulting from the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP). Resolved (2105.09.28.17), the Board approves the amendments to ICANN Bylaws Annex A as posted for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bylaws-proposed-amendments-gnso… [PDF, 656 KB]), creating a new Annex A-1 that outlines the GNSO EPDP. Resolved (2015.09.28.18), the Board approves the amendments to ICANN Bylaws Annex A as posted for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bylaws-proposed-amendments-gnso… [PDF, 656 KB]), creating a new Annex A-2 that outlines the GNSO GGP. (See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f for further details) Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3D6EC.FAD3D950] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:24 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Anne, I think your recollection of the CPIF and what it actually states are not necessarily aligned the way I read it. Look at page 3 in following Document (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa…) Under Section IV, in the chart and the text below, there IS a definitive End Date for the IRT in the “Analyze and Design” stage. In fact, in the chart it says in red “The IRT concludes work”. After that there is the actual implementation phase followed by the “Policy Effective Date GDD to Compliance Handoff”. The “Predictability Framework” we are proposing starts at the point in which that diagram states “IRT CONCLUDES WORK.” It is quite possible (as happened during the 2012 round) that additional issues will arise after the original IRT concludes its work and even after the “Policy Effective Date”. It is for those issues (which could be operational) that we are talking about. In the last round, that would have included things like (1). Changing the contract AFTER Guidebook Release, (2) Changing from Digital Archery to Priority Draw (again After the release of the Guidebook), (3) Changing of PDT Testing Requirements (yet again after the Guidebook was released), etc…… I hope that looking at the chart and the explanations below the chart at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-consensus-policy-implementa… makes it a little clearer. Perhaps we can add a chart to our report as well. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:59 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'Steve Chan' <steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' <gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Sorry – I meant by GNSO Council at its April 26 meeting. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3D6EC.FAD3D950] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:46 AM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Chan'; 'gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org' Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Just to emphasize this “post launch aspect” of the existing tools, the Board and the GNSO are seriously considering the use of an Expedited PDP to address GDPR issues and accreditation. The Expedited PDP procedure is anticipated to take 360 days. This will be discussed by the Board in more detail at its April 26 meeting. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D3D6EC.FAD3D950] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 10:47 AM To: 'Jeff Neuman'; 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Thanks Jeff. Mostly agree with the tweaks but I honestly still do not understand the notion that “implementation phase ends when the program is launched”. That was not at all what was discussed in the Policy and Implementation Working Group. In fact, there are provisions that call for reconvening of IRT. So the main question I am trying to address in order to avoid a conflict between the GNSO Input, Guidance, and Expedited PDP processes is: When does this Predictability Framework kick in? In fact, the case studies done by P &I WG were virtually all post-launch of the 2012 program if “launch” is tied to receiving applications. The intent of GNSO Input, Guidance, and Expedited PDP framework was that it exists well beyond launch. That is why I have always been confused by this discussion and the lack of correlation between the two remedies. So I call Predictability Framework a fourth mechanism because you call policy number 1, implementation number 2 and Predictability Framework number 3. The policy and implementation Working Group determined through its case studies that when issues arise during implementation (including after launch, e.g. name collisions and RPM issues), it is fruitless to try to determine whether the issue involved is either policy or implementation, but that the remedy is to make sure that if enough people believe the issue involves some controversy, we need find a way to get it back to the GNSO. (This work actually all resulted from your letter to the Board objecting to the implementation of the Strawman Solution without coming back to the GNSO for advice.) Staff commented they wanted direction and didn’t want to be in the middle of this controversy. In fact, it was Marika who pointed out that nobody should waste time trying to determine whether the issue was a policy issue or an implementation issue. (You will recall Fadi said it was implementation.) This particular issue may have been pre-launch but many other case studies we reviewed were not pre-launch. So to my mind, your examples in the chart are confusing because several of them would clearly be covered by GNSO Input, Guidance, or Expedited PDP procedures which can easily kick in post-launch. But – to answer the question about “fourth”: 1. Policy 2. Implementation (which we have seen can involve policy issues) 3. CPIF – including GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP procedures where issues arise (GNSO determines how serious the issue is) 4. Predictability Framework – but several of the items in the chart actually fit in an existing CPIF process. (this is why I say “fourth”) I don’t think calling this “changes to operations” actually creates a different category from those that were considered by the Policy & Implementation Working Group. “Changes to operations” is just another word for “implementation” as nearly as I can tell. In other words, there are already existing mechanisms to deal with many of the examples given in the chart – as enumerated in Item 3. If there are Items we want to back out of the CPIF existing mechanisms or if we truly believe there is a timing difference, that needs to be further illuminated. Yes – this was discussed on many calls and the Report should reflect those discussions. Thanks for your thoughtful responses. We have to be clear with the Community and we don’t want these same questions coming up at the Board level. They need to be resolved here. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image005.png@01D3D6EC.FAD3D950] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 7:21 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Steve Chan'; gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Predictability - Section 1.2.2 Anne, Thanks for the thorough comments. I have renamed the e-mail Chain to reflect the Section of the Report and give my thoughts: 1. Comment from Anne: Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”). In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. Response from Jeff: Good Suggestions. Can I offer the following slight tweaks: “Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of consensus recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented approved the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”) {footnote to Framework} a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase of Consensus Policies. This that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP {Insert Footnote to CPIF where definitions can be found for these terms}. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”).” 1. Comment from Anne: In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. Response from Jeff: Agree with that change. 1. Comment from Anne: In the section “Anticipated Outcome”, please add the following after the first sentence: “The existing CPIF also recognizes this fact and provides for three mechanisms that mandate a process for additional advice where issues arise.” However, many in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are seeking to establish a supplemental framework (designed to apply when implementation is complete) which, even in the event of changes, etc etc.” Response from Jeff: I think the second paragraph in that section along with the expansion of the discussion in the next section “Details of the Predictability Framework” does exactly what you recommend. Do you disagree? 1. Comment from Anne: In the last sentence in that section on “Anticipated Outcome”, the use of the term “after program launch” is unclear. “Launch” is a clear term as to a particular TLD. Acceptance of applications could be considered “launch” of the next round, but at that time, there would likely still be an IRT. What exactly do we mean by “implementation is considered complete” and who makes that determination? Response from Jeff: In the “Details of the Predictability Framework” Section, under Phase 3 we state: “For the purposes of the New gTLD Program, the effective date may better be considered as the date of program/Applicant Guidebook adoption by the ICANN Board or the opening of the application window.” How about we do the following: a. Put a footnote in the “Anticipated Outcome” section pointing to where we define “Launch”. b. Make it clear in the sentence referenced in Phase 3 above is our proposed definition of “Launch” and c. Add a question in the Feedback section that asks for comment on our definition of Launch. 1. Comment from Anne: In the Section “Details of the Predictability Framework”, please Delete a portion of the second sentence of this section after the word, “ambiguities” and insert the following: “The GNSO proposed and the Board adopted a process whereby the GNSO could provide additional input with respect to various issues which might arise in the implementation phase”. Then begin the new sentence. “The WG is considering proposing the addition of a fourth element to be known as the ‘Predictability Framework” etc etc. (No need for underlining in the actual text – I show this only for emphasis on the requested changes.) Response from Jeff: I am a little confused as to why you are referring to it as a fourth element. The first element is policy development. The second is implementation (as covered by the CPIF). The Implementation Phase ends when the program is launched. Therefore, the third is this “Predictability Framework.” What am I missing? The Predictability Framework which envisions setting up a Standing IRT can refer things back to Phase 1 or Phase 2 at their discretion, but I re-read the CPIF and it does not necessarily apply once there is a launch of a program and changes to operations may need to be made. That is why we are creating this Framework in the first place as discussed on the numerous call. That said, I have no issue adding the work “considering” before the word “proposing” in that first paragraph. 1. Comment from Anne: Add the following to list of questions for feedback: How do you see the proposed Predictability Framework interacting with the existing CPIF procedures known as GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP? In other words, when would these processes be utilized and when would application of the Predictability Framework make more sense? Response from Jeff: Makes sense. We will work that in. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw The following additions/changes are needed to avoid the conflict with existing ICANN Board adopted policy in this arena: Under Section 1.2.2 Predictability, item c., Please add the following first sentence. “Currently, as a result of recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board implemented a process for issues that arise during the implementation phase that permits the GNSO to provide “GNSO Input” or “GNSO Guidance” on an issue or to advise the Board that the issue requires either a full or Expedited PDP. Guidelines for these processes are provided in the GNSO’s Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (“CPIF”). In the second sentence, please change “The Working Group believes that” to “there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that”. In the section “Anticipated Outcome”, please add the following after the first sentence: “The existing CPIF also recognizes this fact and provides for three mechanisms that mandate a process for additional advice where issues arise.” However, many in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG are seeking to establish a supplemental framework (designed to apply when implementation is complete) which, even in the event of changes, etc etc.” In the last sentence in that section on “Anticipated Outcome”, the use of the term “after program launch” is unclear. “Launch” is a clear term as to a particular TLD. Acceptance of applications could be considered “launch” of the next round, but at that time, there would likely still be an IRT. What exactly do we mean by “implementation is considered complete” and who makes that determination? In the Section “Details of the Predictability Framework”, please Delete a portion of the second sentence of this section after the word, “ambiguities” and insert the following: “The GNSO proposed and the Board adopted a process whereby the GNSO could provide additional input with respect to various issues which might arise in the implementation phase”. Then begin the new sentence. “The WG is considering proposing the addition of a fourth element to be known as the ‘Predictability Framework” etc etc. (No need for underlining in the actual text – I show this only for emphasis on the requested changes.) In the Section entitled “What specific questions are the PDP WG seeking feedback on?”, please add the following question: * How do you see the proposed Predictability Framework interacting with the existing CPIF procedures known as GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO Expedited PDP? In other words, when would these processes be utilized and when would application of the Predictability Framework make more sense? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D3D6EC.FAD3D950] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 8:39 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday 16 April 2018 at 20:00 UTC, for 90 minutes. 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued) 4. AOB For item 3 of the agenda, we will be reviewing another section of the draft Initial Report. Attached, please find an extract of the section on Overarching Issues, which includes eight (8) topics. Those signed up as Members to this PDP WG should have received meeting information from the SOAC Support team. If you did not receive these participation details or if you would like to send your apologies, please contact the SOAC Support team (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  steve.chan(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses…> 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/ ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.

1 0