Dear Anne, Rubens, all, I am sure Jeff will chime in as well if necessary, but I do not believe his intention was to imply a preference for an IRT or not in aiding GDD during implementation. The line receiving focus is probably the first sentence of his email which states, “…an eventual PDP Implementation Review Team (IRT) that may be established once our work is completed and approved by the GNSO Council.“ [emphasis added]. His choice in wording is consistent with the Policy & Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report (see recommendation #4), the PDP Manual (see section 14), the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (see Roles and Responsibilities), and the ICANN Bylaws (see Annex A, section 10), which all note that the creation of an IRT is not mandatory. However, several of these documents make it clear that the creation of an IRT is expected except under exceptional circumstances (e.g., there is already another IRT in place), which is a decision made by the GNSO Council. Best, Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 4:11 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team It seems that calling the Standing IRT something else would be beneficial to avoid the confusion with the policy meaning of IRTs. Perhaps SORP - Standing Operation Review Panel ? As for the IRT, it's safe to assume that everyone here knows an C, SG, AC or SO leader to convey the suggestion either that having an IRT is preferred or that not having an IRT is preferred, so the Council can act accordingly. The fact that this is not in the charter only means it can't be in the final report, not that there is a gag order on whether the undertaking of an IRT is worthwhile in implement this policy. Rubens Em 28 de mar de 2019, à(s) 19:29:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu: Thanks Jeff – your summary below makes sense, except that I was operating under the assumption that the next round will have an IRT. It sounds as though you are saying that GNSO Council may choose (by a vote I guess) not to constitute an IRT to guide implementation of the next round. ( It seems the current version of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework would permit GNSO Council to forego the IRT.) I wonder if others in the Working Group assume an IRT will be available to assist with and resolve implementation issues. This is important since an IRT normally has broad community representation. But perhaps the reason staff public comment was keen to have us clarify that they are authorized to resolve any issues arising during implementation was because they know they may not have an IRT available. If we are going so far as to recommend a standing IRT at some point in the next round, it cannot be outside our jurisdiction to recommend that GNSO institute an IRT in connection with the Implementation Phase . (I thought I saw “constituting an IRT” on the timeline that you shared with the GAC but maybe I am just dreaming. Can you please send us all that timeline?) The two questions discussed on our call were whether an IRT can have input into (1) the types of change requests that need public comment and (2) the drafting of the Applicant Guidebook. These questions pale in comparison to the general procedural question as to whether or not we recommend an IRT be constituted. I can say without a doubt as an active member of the Policy & Implementation Working Group that throughout those discussions, it was recognized that staff would be able to bring implementation issues to IRT members and that IRT members would be able to bring implementation issues to Council’s attention if necessary – specifically for consideration as to whether the issue raised during implementation might require the new formal procedures we were recommending, especially GNSO Input or GNSO Guidance , both now contained in the Annexes to the PDP Manual. (You may recall this process arose because GNSO Council objected, in the form of a letter authored by you and sent to the ICANN Board, to Fadi Chehade’s characterization of the “Strawman Solution” protecting IP rights as “implementation”, not policy. In other words, the “Strawman Solution” was an ICANN org decision that GNSO Council objected to strenuously. The letter said to the Board, “if you are going to change policy like that, you have to come back to the Council.) Bottom line: If there is an IRT, proper questions will be raised during implementation and the drafting of the revised Applicant Guidebook. You seem to be saying there may not be an IRT for implementation of changes for the next round and you are apparently also saying this WG cannot recommend to Council that an IRT be constituted, that such a recommendation would somehow be “outside our jurisdiction”. (That suggestion as to jurisdiction, again, is quite strange given we ARE recommending a Standing IRT for a later phase.) I guess we have never asked for public comment on the issue of whether or not we should be recommending that the GNSO institute an IRT in the implementation phase. Some public commenters could well have been confused into believing that the “general agreement” on the recommended Standing IRT would be as a continuation of the Implementation Phase IRT. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 6:20 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team [EXTERNAL] During the Call this week, some questions arose regarding our role vis a vis an eventual PDP Implementation Review Team (IRT) that may be established once our work is completed and approved by the GNSO Council. This issue has been discussed with and reviewed by Elsa and Flip (our GNSO Council Liaisons). The role of the IRT is as laid out in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf) (CPIF). A PDP IRT is intended to support ICANN’s Global Domains Division (GDD) in implementation without revisiting policy discussions. More specifically, an IRT, if convened by the GNSO Council, “serve[s] as a resource to implementation staff on policy and technical questions that arise.” This is also described in Annex L of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/policy-implementation/piwg-final-recommenda...). The CPIF makes it clear that GDD manages the implementation. An IRT, if constituted, will review the work of GDD it in the spirit of how the PDP intended the recommendations to be. Our role as the PDP WG is to develop detailed policy recommendations. In addition to policy recommendations, we have the ability to recommend “implementation guidance” as the PDP Working Group. Implementation Guidance, as discussed on our call, are those areas where we want to create a strong presumption that GDD should implement our recommendation unless there is a compelling reason that they are unable to do so. It is certainly stronger than a directive that GDD should “try” to implement our recommendations, but also leaves flexibility to an IRT and GDD staff to go in a different direction if necessary. The specific question raised on the call involved a PDP IRT’s role in drafting the actual language to be included in the Applicant Guidebook. The short answer is that the Working Group Chairs, ICANN Policy Staff, and our GNSO Council Liaisons are if the opinion that this question is beyond the scope of our Working Group. More precisely this will be an issue discussed by the GNSO Council and GDD if and when an IRT is established. Our focus should be to create detailed policy recommendations (that ICANN/GDD MUST implement) and where appropriate, Implementation Guidance, that ICANN SHOULD implement in consultation with an IRT (if applicable). ***Please note that this relates to a PDP IRT and not to a potential Standing IRT discussed in our draft Predictability Model which, if adopted, would serve as a standing panel constituted after launch of the next round to assist with issues that arise after the launch.*** We hop this helps. Huge thanks to Elsa and Flip for following up on this issue. Best regards, Jeff Neuman & Cheryl Langdon Orr SubPro PDP Co-Chairs 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg