Hi All, The meeting coming up in an hour will be discussing the Predictability Framework. In preparation, I would like to share the full text of the NCSG comment on this matter, since I expect we will be discussing it at some length. Having the full text (not long, approx 500 words) will hopefully provide valuable background as to the nature and basis of our concerns. Best, Kathy --------------------- _NCSG Comment__ _ *"2.2.2 The Predictability Framework Proposal is Not Fair, Balanced, or Consistent with our Policy Development Process* The Predictability Frame is concerning to the NCSG because it gives inordinate and unprecedented power to the Implementation Review Team (IRT) of the Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group. The proposal creates a Super-IRT not just to roll-out the details of the implementation — but to judge and rule on all issues that arise. To quote the Initial Report, /“as part of the Predictability Framework, a Standing/ /Implementation Review Team (IRS) should be constituted after the publication of the/ /Applicant Guidebook to consider changes in the implementation, execution and/or operations/ /of the new gTLD program after its launch, and the introduction of any further evaluation/ /guidelines not available to applicants when applications were submitted.”/ * * *"Disproportionate representation in IRTs* We note that IRTs are mostly small groups, disproportionately represented by registries and registrars — those knowledgeable and concerned about the technicalities of the technical policy we have created at ICANN. Rarely does the NCSG, for example, have the ability or bandwidth to serve on an IRT — and such service should not be needed if the IRT remains to be the technical implementation arm of a community-driven, community-consensus policy development process. *"IRT cannot be used as a tool for bypassing GNSO PDPs* As highlighted above, such groups are often composed by members of the technical community - or people who are expert in the technical implementation details of the field - and lack a more proportional representation of the ICANN Community. Their job is to execute what the Community as a whole (or a Supporting Organization such as the GNSO) have adopted in time-consuming Policy Development Processes that often take years, and to assess any technical barriers offered to the implementation of such policies. Unfortunately, IRTs have already massively overreached in other areas, and engaged in policy changes and policy interpretation. For instance, the original Rights Protection Mechanisms IRT for the first Applicant Guidebook has been severely criticized in the current Review of All Rights Protections Mechanisms PDP Working Group for its overreach in this area. Once a policy hits a post-launch problem, it is not a matter for any Implementation Review Team (IRT) to resolve, even this Super-IRT, because that would be highly unfair. Implementation Review Teams “implement” — they absolutely don’t create new policies or even interpretations with overwhelmingly policy-oriented interpretations. That’s simply not their mandate, goal, or expertise "This attempt to create this “third element,” this Predictability Framework, is and will become a policy bypass and overreach mechanism. It is created as such to handle newly-arising issues in the New gTLD Program — and ones, as noted above, likely to involve far-reaching or international policy issues. it is not for the industry to resolve (or likely remove) the issue by seeking to set it aside, or interpreting it away, under the guise of “operations and execution.” "For all the reasons above, the *NCSG strongly rejects the proposal of a Framework and the massive expansion of the scope and breadth of the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team *. IRTs should retain their limited mandate and not be given super powers to change policies through process innovation, and especially not in the midst of new rounds of gTLDs." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 4/26/2019 8:27 PM, Steve Chan wrote:
Dear WG members,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday, 30April 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes:
Draft Agenda:
1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXK...) 1. 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures 2. 2.2.2 Predictability / 2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process 3. AOB
Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a sort of catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps).
If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please emailgnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan** ***
Policy Director, GNSO Support
**
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus