Dear all, Regarding the “Predictability Framework”, I note that many have commented on the importance of the IRT. With respect to the next “round”, I think it will be imperative to have a standing IRT in order to make the determinations that are covered by this proposed Framework language. Again, I do not think we should repeat the mistakes of the 2012 round by establishing a system whereby staff merely “collaborates with the community” to determine when a change involves policy or not. I am not permitted to login to Google docs. Therefore I note the issues raised by this Framework (and raised previously on the list) in the following written comments: Second Bullet Point – “Revised Processes/Procedures” – I bungled an “Anonymous” suggestion in Google docs to delete the reference to the notion that changes in processes and procedures that have a “significant effect on applicants and other community members” can be made by simply communicating these changes to the community. PLEASE NOTE THAT IN THIS BULLET POINT THERE IS NO COMMUNITY COLLABORATION REQUIRED. THERE IS ONLY A REQUIREMENT THAT CHANGES IN ICANN PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES BE COMMUNICATED BEFORE THEY ARE DEPLOYED. Example given: “A change made to the workflow for change requests” – what does this mean and what opportunity do community members have to object to change requests from registry operators? Will that be preserved or not preserved? Would ICANN change that procedure without consulting with the community? Doesn’t this depend on the nature of the change request? Who should be determining whether a change request is significant or not in terms of whether it affects policy or not? (My answer – IRT) Third Bullet Point – New Processes and Procedures – Example given is “A new process is created to submit objections”. The “Mitigation Strategy” is “Staff will work with the Community to develop the solution”. THE QUESTION WHETHER A NEW METHOD OF SUBMITTING OBJECTIONS INVOLVES POLICY OR DOES NOT INVOLVE POLICY SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY IRT, NOT STAFF. Fundamental, Possible Policy-level Changes “Revisions” section makes reference to implementation that may “materially and significantly differ from the original intent”. The text goes on to say that “Staff will collaborate with the community.” Later it says that staff may determine (presumably in collaboration with the community) that the “change is not significant” even though the definition says the revision may in fact be quite significant. WHY DOES THIS SUGGEST THAT A SIGNIFICANT AND MATERIAL REVISION CAN MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT RESORT TO THE POLICY PROCESS IF IT IS DETERMINED “IN COLLABORATION WITH THE COMMUNITY” THAT THE REVISION IS “NOT SIGNIFICANT”? The guidelines in the proposed Predictability Framework in fact make the implementation process far LESS predictable for the majority of the community. Standing IRT is the correct solution and the numerous references to “collaboration with the community” make the process very vague indeed. Fundamentally, GNSO should be determining whether or not changes and revisions involve policy. IRT is an effective gate for this determination since it is representative of the community. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D31D9C.3643C0F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 11:28 AM To: Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 29 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Tuesday (Monday for some), 29 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Please note, this call is scheduled for 90 minutes. 1. Welcome/SOIs 2. Work Track Updates 3. Drafting Team Discussion – Predictability Framework (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81...) 4. AOB Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@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/gnso> 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/ 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.
