All, This weekend the leadership team reviewed some of the outstanding Action Items and we will be sending out several emails this week on those issues. Here is where we think we are on the Predictability topic. We are down to the wire on this, so unless you have a VERY strong objection to these, we will put these into the document. If you do have a big issue with the responses to these (all of which were previously discussed and in emails over the past 1.5 months, please let us know ASAP. Only comments that provide the rationale for the objection with proposed replacement text to address the specific outstanding questions will now be considered. Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 1. Can the GAC refer items directly to the SPIRT? It does not seem like there is Consensus within the Working Group for the GAC to be able to refer items directly to the SPIRT. That said, there does seem to be support within the group to include a recommendation/implementation guidance to encourage the ICANN Board / ICANN Org to engage in dialogue with the SPIRT to determine the steps required to consider GAC Consensus Advice. 1. Should the GAC have a Liaison to the SPIRT? There did seem to be some support within the Working Group to have AC Liaisons (ALAC / GAC / SSAC) to the SPIRT If those groups want to have one. 1. Regarding Turnaround Time for the SPIRT on Issues? The WG seemed to believe that setting timelines now in advance of issues we cannot yet predict is too difficult. That said, there did seem to be some support for the notion that every item referred to the SPIRT should contain an expected turnaround time in the referral request. This will also allow for certain items to be handled in an expedient fashion when required and others to have a longer time where speed may not be needed. 1. Ability for the ICANN Board to Respond to Emergency Situations. This comes up with respect to Predictability and with Systems (Topic 14). * With respect to the Predictability Framework: We propose adding a recommendation / implementation guidance that acknowledges that there may be some emergency actions which will require ICANN Org to take an action that may impact the new gTLD program. In such a case, the action should be narrowly tailored to address the emergency situation and recommend that the ICANN Board notify all impacted applicants (If any) and the SPIRT within 24 hours after the emergency situation. The notification shall include the nature of the emergency, the action (or expected action) taken in response to the emergency, as well as expected impacts on the new gTLD Program. That notification shall be considered a referral to the SPIRT of an issue if the SPIRT elects to address that issue. * With respect to Systems (Topic 14): We propose adding a recommendation stating: "With respect to its operation and administration of the systems, ICANN must retain the ability to act in emergency situations, including those where immediate action is necessary to remedy any service interruption, interference, service obstruction or other imminent threat to the systems; provided that ICANN provides notice to all impacted users of the affected system(s) as soon as reasonably practicable after such action has been taken along, and if such action involves any downtime to the system(s), it shall provide updates to impacted users as to when normal service can be restored." 1. Level of Detail in Change Logs: We propose adding to the recommendations / implementation guidance that the change log must contain a level of detail sufficient for the community to understand the scope and nature of the change without compromising security, the privacy of individuals, or confidentiality obligation owed to applicants or to other third parties. 1. Other ICANN Org Predictability Framework Questions - Can be handled by IRT. Please have your comments (If any) by no later than 23:59:59 UTC on Wednesday, December 2, 2020. Thanks! Sincerely, Jeff and Cheryl Co-Chairs, SubPro PDP