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:

  1. Put a footnote in the “Anticipated Outcome” section pointing to where we define “Launch”.
  2. Make it clear in the sentence referenced in Phase 3 above is our proposed definition of “Launch” and
  3. 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@valideus.com or 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:

 

 

Thank you,

Anne

 

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman@lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

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@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@icann.org).

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

 

Steven Chan


Policy Director, GNSO Support

 

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


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 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/

 

 


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.