Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 30 April 2019. 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/2019-04-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Please also see the referenced document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXK.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: -- Staff will check on the ICANN Board response to the GAC advice in the Helsinki Communique’ on new gTLDs. -- WG to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe “Post Application Advisory Team”. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXK...) 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish -- First bullet: replace “rounds” with “procedures”. 2.2.1.c.1: The Working Group recommends no changes to the existing policy calling for subsequent application rounds introduced in an ongoing, orderly, timely and predictable manner. -- Support from most commenters New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: -- GAC Advice and BC: Support for new rounds but no rounds started until reviews (CCT-RT) are complete. Need to do a cost-benefit analysis before starting new round. -- WG is taking into consideration the CCT-RT recommendations. Discussion: -- Policy does not have a demand component. -- Action Item: Board response to GAC Advice in the Helskinki Communique’. -- Note that the CCT-RT did have an economic study done by the Analysis Group, although perhaps not a full cost-benefit analysis. -- Concerns with maintaining the current policy unless there are objections. -- Unless there is a consensus on changing precedent we should stay on the same path. -- Can build on what we have learned, but hard to do analysis on what people might want. -- If the WG wants to request for an assessment to be done that will have to be approved by the Council. -- Calling for rounds introduced in an ongoing orderly timely and predictable manner support came from pretty much every group that responded in public comments to the Initial Report. -- We have some qualifications from the GAC. 2.2.1.e.1: The 2007 Final Report noted that success metrics would be developed around the New gTLD Program. What are some specific metrics that the program should be measured against? -- Support from most commenters. New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations: ALAC, BRG, BC, RySG – New Ideas Discussion: -- Good proposals for different types of metrics. -- Need to define what we mean by success; CCT-RT referred that issue to the SubPro WG. -- Questions and issues in the CCT-RT could put some of these issues to rest. -- This WG could come up with a half dozen categories (elements of the program) and develop definitions of success for those – or develop targets, which is a less loaded word. -- Good conversation to continue on email. -- You could have a high-level structure from the 2012 round (to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS), then create specific targets within that structure within that framework. 2.2.2 Predictability -- Support from most commenters -- BC/RySG/IPC/ALAC (in response to e.1): New Idea - The Standing IRT must be representative of the community, but must also allow for the appointment of experts where needed. New Ideas/Concepts for Deliberations -- ICANN Org: Concerns/New Ideas Discussion: -- Can things in the model be improved so that you can support it? If not, what takes its place? -- Don’t think it’s in our authority to replace the GNSO policy process. -- We're not changing any of the policies or processes that have been established. -- Changes to policies after the launch need to go through the GNSO policy process; the predictability framework is for issues that come up outside of that process and guidance to the standing IRT. In the report we called it a standing IRT, but that seems to be confusing so we should change the name. Could call it a “gateway” to decide what is policy and what is not, and only looking at non-policy issues. -- Need to be more conscious of the need for predictability for third party interests. We use the term “affected parties” for that reason. -- WG needs to come up with a different name for the “standing IRT”. Maybe a Post Application Advisory Team.