Hi Anne,

Thanks for your question. Minority views are discussed in Section 3.6. For ease of reference, here is an excerpt of the relevant language:

Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals.

In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s).

Kind regards,

Emily

From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2020 at 23:57
To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 January 2020

Thanks for these notes. Regarding the Action Item to distribute 3.6 of the Working Group guidelines re stating a rationale when Consensus is not achieved, I assume this provision will also cover the option for Minority Statements. If for any reason 3.6 does not cover that option, I would ask that Leadership circulate the language from the WG guidelines that does cover Minority Statements.

Just can’t remember the specifics here.

Thank you,

Anne

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 4:40 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 7 January 2020

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the meeting on 7 January 2020. 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, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-01-07+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP

As a follow-up to the first action item below, the Working Group discussed the principle that the SPIRT should be able to provide input regardless of the level of consensus achieved on recommendations. A Working Group member raised on the call that a rationale should accompany the different perspectives within the SPIRT when there is a division of opinion within the group. Working Group members are encouraged to review the Standard Methodology for Making Decisions in Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines to see if there is sufficient guidance in Section 3.6 about documenting the rationale supporting different views. Section 3.6 is available on page 8 of the WG Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]

Kind regards,
Emily

Notes and Action Items:

ACTION ITEM: Leadership will circulate Section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines to so that the group can review if it adequately addresses providing a rationale when opinion is divided and there is not consensus.

ACTION ITEM: Throughout the document, change “raised” an issue with the SPIRT to “forwarded.”

Notes

1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest

No updates to SOIs

2. Work Plan

This will be discussed at a high level today. A more detailed work plan will be available at the end of this week or beginning of next week.
Original plan was to hold a public comment period at the beginning of this year, with delivery of the Final Report by the end of Q1. This plan will need to be revised.
Documents are under development on each of the topics in this PDP, narrowly focused on areas of agreement with the intent to reach draft final recommendations.
We will have another public comment period. The leadership team has been discussing how to structure this in line with feedback received.
Leadership team recommends making all draft recs available during the public comment period, but seeking feedback on specific areas that have not been out for public comment previously. We can’t stop people from making comments on other areas, but we will make clear that the focus will be on topics for which we are seeking input.
In one of the upcoming meetings, we will go over one of the recommendations documents drafted on one of the “easier” topics so everyone can review approach and format that will put forward for public comment.
Question – if the WG gets feedback from Board, GAC, SSAC or other groups on sections of the Report that we don’t request feedback on, what are we going to do with that? The input could be important and valuable and we don’t want to disenfranchise anyone.
Answer – We will need to make a judgment call in these cases and determine whether the input needs to go through another layer of analysis.
Auction Proceeds Proposed Final Report – this went out for public comment recently. There were three specific questions that commenters were asked to focus on, but people can provide comments on other topics as well. This might be a model to use for SubPro.
Question – how do we distinguish between areas that are new and haven’t been covered (and therefore require public comment) and those that have not? This sounds subjective.
Answer – For example, if the group concludes that we are going to do a series of fixed rounds, and someone puts in a comment supporting first-come, first-served, we are going to respond that we have already considered this and the issue is closed. We don’t want to rehash what has already been reviewed where a decision has been made.
Some WG members supported making sure that new suggestions and ideas are considered.
On areas that are new, like the predictability model or if we come up with something new for contention resolution, we will ask focused questions and encouraging comments.
Staff clarification – draft policy recommendations documents will not all be discussion papers. Discussion papers have been focused on those topics where there needs to be further discussion. For most topics, the intention is to develop draft policy recommendations with rationale, as well limited text on deliberations focused on issues raised since the last public comment. These will follow the format of the WT5 Final Report.
Question – Will CCT-RT recs be discussed in the report with explanation of how the WG is addressing them?
Chart that was reviewed by the group late last year includes state of the discussion on each recommendation and also includes SubPro topics that are applicable to each recommendation. The CCT-RT recs will be addressed in the applicable sections of the final report.
As we review draft recommendations, it’s important for everyone to review the materials in advance. If there are open issues that are not included in the documents, it’s important to raise them on the mailing list before the call where the topic will be covered.

3. Predictability Framework:

a. Summary Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit#heading=h.7kd5yr7uelh2 [docs.google.com]

Review of the issue we are trying to address - How do we address changes after the launch of the next round of the New gTLD Program? How do we deal with unanticipated issues?
Review of policy goals - Regarding when the Predictability Framework commences, leadership team believes it should become applicable once the AGB is finalized (as opposed to when the application window opens), but the WG needs to come to agreement on this.
Review of the proposal – recommending the formation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team to review potential changes to the program.

b. Proposed Answers to Open Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISHJi7Q/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]

Review of proposed Role of the SPIRT – staff to correct text to note that the SPIRT comes into play after approval of the AGB.
Staff note – the WG discussed that existing documents might be a basis for materials regarding the SPIRT. This document attempts to pull elements from the IRT Guidelines, CSC and PDP charters, and IoT Guidelines that might be applicable to the SPIRT.
Review of role of the GNSO – Some agreement that the second bullet is redundant and can be removed.
Review of who can raise an issue to the SPIRT and rationale.
Question – does the GNSO Council have a mechanism in which it can provide feedback in a rapid fashion?
Answer – this will be discussed under the next section: how can each of these groups raise an issue? The GNSO may need to tailor some of its existing procedures. One of our recommendations could be that they develop that.
No objections raised to Board and Org having the ability to raise issues.
Regarding the GNSO Council, there are different options of who can raise an issue. This will have an impact on timing.
We shouldn’t develop process for the sake of developing processes.
Comment - There is nothing stopping a PDP or PDP leadership team from asking Council for input. This is a good starting point. There is no reason for Council not to be able to be nimble in responding. The Council Liaison could be a tool that could be more extensively used as well.
Response - It might not be that someone from the SPIRT group is asking Council for input. It would likely be someone from the community raising it to Council, and the issue is raised within Council. The question is about what the threshold will be for Council to take up the issue.
Some support for the fact that raising an issue within Council should be informal and could be raised by a single Councilor. From this perspective, voting and a more formal mechanism is appropriate to determine how the issue is handled – SPIRT or other process/mechanism.
We are starting with the assumption that if the GNSO Council wants to send something to the SPIRT team and determining what happens next. This is the perspective we are coming from.
From one perspective, we would need to state that Council has not elected to use other processes. It is important to be clear about procedures.
For item 5. Suggestion to rephrase the category: “How can each of these groups raise an issue to the SPIRT?”
There are difficult questions about the mechanism of how issues get raised to Council. We need to think about the relationship between SG/Cs and Council, Council Members as representatives of the SG/Cs, etc. We could suggest an email address where community members can raise issues to Council. There is no halfway approach – either you leave it to Council to figure out how to handle or you provide a detailed approach recommending how Council carries this out.
Reminder that the SPIRT is advisory in nature, which may make it less political.
Concern that allowing one Councilor to send an issue to the SPIRT might leave the SPIRT susceptible to lobbying.
Suggestion to pick and propose one of the options under section 5 and put it out for public comment.
Clarification regarding the options available – if a Constituency could raise an issue, the IPC alone could raise the issue (for example). But if a Stakeholder Group is the minimum threshold, it would need to be the whole CSG that is raising the issue to Council.
Review of decision-making process of SPIRT – Clarification – this group should be able to report its advice regardless of the level of support achieved. Text may need clarification. We may not only want to report the divisions of perspectives but also the rationales.
Leadership believes that this is largely covered in Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines.
This group is different, less formal than at WG. If the SPIRT group is divided, it needs to be clear why.

Section 7 – review of who receives Advice/Guidance issued by the SPIRT?

ACTION ITEM: Throughout the document, change “raised” an issue with the SPIRT to “forwarded.”

Comment regarding section 5 that there should be text that processes should be carried out expeditiously.
The WG will start with section 8 on the next call.

c. Process Flow Chart (to be provided)

Item deferred.

4. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort (time permitting):

Item deferred.

5. AOB

a. Update from meeting of the ICANN Board/Senior ICANN org management/SubPro leadership/Council leadership

In attendance: Jeff and Cheryl from SubPro; Goran and Cyrus from ICANN org; Keith, Pam, Rafik from Council leadership; Becky and Avri from the Board.
Board wants to be aware of particularly thorny issues that are coming their way and the timing of when issues will reach the Board.
The Board will likely be getting more letters from SO/ACs and other interested parties, and this is a way of opening up communications between the PDP, Org, and Board on handling the issues raised.
ICANN org has set up an executive team to start planning processes to implement next round.
If, for example, the WG expects to put forward a recommendation that is in conflict with GAC Advice, the Board will want to know this.
The goal is to be in closer communication and flag an issues in advance.
If anything of note comes up on these coordination calls in the future, the SubPro Co-Chairs will share with the WG.
Board requested current thinking of the WG on the public comment period as letters from the GAC and ALAC went to the Board. Co-Chairs said that they would talk with the WG and make sure there is agreement on the approach and then share this approach with the Board.
The purpose is to avoid as many surprises as possible through early and regular communication.
GAC is interested in learning in advance how SubPro recommendations may deviate from their advice. This is not something we have started working on but it has been requested.

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.