Dear WG Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 28 November. These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat room notes will be provided separately. For reference see the documents at: Drafting Team Discussion continued – Different TLD Types (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/YKLRAw and Working Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework (Wiki Page: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81... Drafting Team Discussion continued – Applications Assessed in Rounds (Wiki Page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZKLRAw and Working Document:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u3UzvZIXzjnxtklgPmqArqff6dyckUbyuzWyLz7d... Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Actions/Discussion Notes 1. SOIs: None. 2.  Work Track (WT) Updates from the WT co-leads: Work Track 1: -- Last call was on variable and fixed costs. -- Next call is applicant support and applicant guidebook. Work Track 2: -- Call last week on vertical integration.  Reviewed CC2 comments.  Asking the full WT for input. -- Got data from Compliance and need some follow-up information.   Drafted and shared some new questions. Work Track 3: --Next meeting:  Community based applications and community applications. Last discussion before moving on to the written phase of our evaluation. Work Track 4: -- Work Track 4 canceled the last meeting because of lack of deliberation on the models. -- Flesh out the various models more in the WT. Work Track 5: -- Meeting on 29 November at 0500 UTC. -- Working on a Terms of Reference.  Need to decide these. -- Need to agree on the letters back to the ccTLD, GAC and ALAC.  Action ongoing. -- In the meeting on 30 November the WT will be Discussing the risk model as a working model in the meeting.  Slides will be shared for the meeting. WT5 timeline, you can see in the slides shared from the 15 Nov meeting on page 18: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/74580758/SubProWT5_15Nov201... 3. Discussion on Working Group Timeline -- Goal is to get the Preliminary Report out by mid-April of 2018. -- Timeline for Work Tracks 1-4, not Work Track 5. 4. Drafting Team Discussion continued – Predictability Framework: Discussion: -- Language in the framework is quite vague. -- We have incorporated unpredictability. -- Aspects of the new gTLD program may require a more nimble program than contemplated. -- Look at what happens after the normal end date of a non-gTLD policy. -- Tried to define a "minor process update" -- no changes to AGB, and do not need to involve the community (proposed strawperson). --- Special Implementation Review Team for new gTLDs subsequent procedures? -- Should there be a panel to advice ICANN staff after the program has already launched? -- IRT is collaborating with the community -- not just a pre-selected group.  Standing panel may need to be empowered to consult with other entities.  Trying to come up with something that is more predictable, with a more formal way for the SSAC to get feedback -- separate from or complementary to the public comment forum. -- An IRT is not the community, but is meant to be the surrogate com -- The phases are assuming that people viewing it understanding the distinctions.  -- A lot of questions about boundaries -- look at page 6 of the document. -- Look at email and the Google doc: think about questions that are to be discussion -- if we did have an IRT/standing committee panel, how many members would we have and what would be there presentation/background?

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The Strawman Solution was nimble- but not exactly popular with some. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: There are numerous references in this draft framework to staff "collaboration with the community" and mention of various options.  unless it is clear that staff has to let the policy determination be made by a Standing IRT, there is too much discretion on the issue of whether or not policy is involved.  This issue and various case studies of problems that arose in the 2012 round was studied very carefully in the Policy and implementation Working Group.  It is not a good idea to be asking staff to make the determination as to whether or not policy is involved.  COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): if operations are seriously affected by the change Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): slight change in the rules might cause it Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: The issue is what is or is not a minor process update.  COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): like small change to Letter of Credit Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I don't think it is needed , if ICANN .org oversteps  or it is not minor then it fits with other parts of the framework Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: There are numerous references in this draft framework to staff "collaboration with the community" and mention of various options.  unless it is clear that staff has to let the policy determination be made by a Standing IRT, there is too much discretion on the issue of whether or not policy is involved.  This issue and various case studies of problems that arose in the 2012 round was studied very carefully in the Policy and implementation Working Group.  It is not a good idea to be asking staff to make the determination as to whether or not policy is involved.  COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): if operations are seriously affected by the change Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): slight change in the rules might cause it Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT: The issue is what is or is not a minor process update.  COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): like small change to Letter of Credit Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I don't think it is needed , if ICANN .org oversteps  or it is not minor then it fits with other parts of the framework Michael Flemming: Is there an option in Google Docs to see a post-suggested form of the document? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Jeff - Exactly Michael Flemming: The link Steve provided has the suggestions on it. Michael Flemming: So a clean copy with the suggestions reflected is what I was inquiring about. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Moving to Michael Flemming: Thanks, Steve. I wasn't sure if there was a view format for that like in Word. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Pages Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): The question then becomes what changes are "procedural" and what changes are "substantive".  Once again it's about who makes that determination.  The Policy and Implemtation WG decided it was impossible to determine in advance differences in policy versus implementation but now it appears we are attempting to override all that work.  This is a failure to learn from past mistakes and a failure to accept the work done by the Policy and Implementation Working Group, which was very carefully done.  "Collaborating with the community" and "staff will work with the community" and "communicate with the affected parties" is very vague stuff unless there is a formal standing IRT process that is required. COMMENT Steve Chan: @Jeff: Expedited PDP, GNSO Input Process, GNSO Guidance Process Jim Prendergast: or Unilateral Right to Amend contract by ICANN Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): +1 Jim , good example Jim Prendergast: yeah it was 2013 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): 5 Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): I think it should be something like SSC where members represent the particular parts of community Justine Chew: yes, all good points requiring consideration and discussion -- roles and membership in IRT, that is. Steve Chan: New gTLD Program Implementation Review Report, mentioned by Jeff, here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-01-29-en Annebeth Lange: You are talking about staff making changes, but how about situations where ICANN Board make changes? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): COMMENT :  I support the Standing IRT - all issues encountered by staff in implementation should be raised with the Standing Panel so no one accuses staff of making policy.  If it's actually pure implementation, it won't even arise as an issue for discussion.  COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I thiink it is a good idea Hadia Elminiawi: I think it is a good idea Annebeth Lange: I agree, it seems like a good idea. Greg Shatan: I think it is a good idea. Sophia Feng: It is not okey Jeff Sara Bockey: Agree.  Standing IRT is a good idea. Sophia Feng: It should be standardized and any changes should be communicated properly Christa Taylor: If a process/service/etc. isn’t meeting the requirements as expected than ICANN should be able to fix the issue without delay.  Changes to policy/process that is outside of expectations or required due to circumstances than I think it could be helpful in expediting the situation Michael Flemming: A good idea. But, I want to understand what we are discussing here better. An IRT is a bit more restrictive but can be open as well. I don't know background of how IRTs are normally formed, but we are discussing the requirements for what that IRT would look like, right? Michael Flemming: After program launch. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You can use the green tick if you agree with  the General Concept of a Standing IRT  (if we do beleive it is worth considering further then we can go on to fine tune qualitites and qualifications for Membership etc., Sophia Feng: Yes it is good idea, Michael Flemming: That definitely provides better clarity. Standing means that it is functional past program launch. Michael Flemming: Thank you for the clarity and that is a very good idea. Justine Chew: agree with need for IRT -- membership should be relatively small to keep it manageable and comprise of both people who are well versed with operational and policy knowledge. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Requiring expertise in backend registry operations excludes numerous members of "the community".  it would necessarily weight changes in favor of contracted parties.  This does not recognize that issues that arise during implementation are far broader than operations issues - e.,g. the Strawman Solution, Specification 13 for brands, PICs to address GAC Advice as to safeguards, etc etc etc Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): it would effectivly be an "oncall group post launch Sophia Feng: What's the procedure of structuring and selecting the panel members to make it more efficient should be considered as well Justine Chew: people with policy knowledge could be drawn from members in PDP WG in order to remind IRT on background of policy where applicable Hadia Elminiawi: @cheryl why post launch? why not before? Quoc Pham: I remember - RDAP Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You might all also refer to the General information here to assist your deliberations https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun... Quoc Pham: also changes to WHOIS output requirements Michael Flemming: I think if we looked at the next page as well, that might offer more clarity to at what point the standing IRT would be involved. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Agree with hadia re pre-launch Standing IRT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): fully constituted GNSO PDP would take years , durign which applicants bleed money till the bancrupcy stage Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): the term Implementation indicates post PDP but it could form pre launch I supose Hadia Justine Chew: don't see why it can't be pre-launch standing IRT, it would be great for ICANN to be able to say they have standing IRT to deal with implementational issues as they arise. Michael Flemming: Perhaps this should form after the PDP final report and for staff to use as a consulting resource for drafting the AGB? Michael Flemming: And functions post-launch as well. Quoc Pham: i guess we need to draw boundaries on what the standing panel covers. we should be careful that the standing panel themselves don't become a roadblock, it should be advisory but not necessarily be authorative Steve Chan: @Jeff, I think Alan had his hand up first. Jeff Neuman: @Quoc - Agree - So lets come up with those boundaries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): You might all also refer to the General information here to assist your deliberations https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun... Greg Shatan: FWIW, I don’t think the strawman was “policy,” which just means its a bad example for these purposes.... Annebeth Lange: Perhaps looking to the way a lot of the ccTLDs do it? I use NORID, as registry for .no, as an example. Since the registry is acting on the behalf of the Local Internet Community, the registry cannot unilaterally change the terms & conditions for the registrants unless there is only a minor, procedural point. If of vital importance we have to have a public consultation. If important, but not vital, we ask our Advisosry Board, consisting of participants for the Local Internet Community. But if our Board instruct us to change something, we have to do it. Jeff Neuman: Action Item:  Call this something different :) Alan Greenberg: @Greg, yes. There were a number of changes that were made that can easily be construed as policcy, since there wwa no other mechanism to handle such a channge at that point in time. Times have now changed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Standing Community Implementation Advisory Group/Panel? Michael Flemming: If these are appointed/elected members, I think Panel is more appropriate Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @ Greg and Alan - I may agree with the observation that the Strawman Solution was implementation.  Some on GNSO Council so strongly disagreed with that - that a letter was written to the Board objecting to it and stating that the Board absolutely had to consult again with GNSO when it made such changes.  In fact,  Jeff authored that letter so it should be obvious from this one example how easy it is for reasonable people to disagree as to what is policy and what is implementation.  Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): for appointed members there is a need for support process Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Yes Steve in the doc I referred to earlier the WG for that though log and hard on matters such as how to populate and constitute an IRT Greg Shatan: Standing Panel for Implementation Guidance, Oversight & Transparency (SPIGOT). Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): where the consistuancy expresses support to particular members / appoint them Justine Chew: just to clarify, in my previous comments re IRT, I was referring to this new panel (post IRT) which name has yet to be set. :-) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): LOL Greg - go with the FLOW Christa Taylor: How about urgent or major types of changes in operations?  A criteria list with points may be one method to determine where it sits w/in the categories i.e. costs, level of risk, timeline impact on applicants, etc. Annebeth Lange: This is how we do it when changes are done: https://www.norid.no/en/regelverk/norpol/ Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): numbers heavily depend on the model Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Re Composition - Alan's point is very relevant - IRT represents the community. Greg Shatan: The multi-non-stakeholder model doesn’t make much sense....  We can’t avoid Greg Shatan: interests; we do need to balance them out. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID): full transparency does not go well with confidentiality Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): There are always ways to try and manage those tensions I suspect though Maxim Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): we just need to look to and suggest some ;-) Hadia Elminiawi: Ok rhanks Jeff Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Focus on composition and requirements for Standing IRT makes sense.  Again, consultation with this Standing Panel should not be optional where something that is characterized as an "issue" is concerned.  Such consultation should be mandatory if there is an ISSUE that arises during implementation. Jeff Neuman: Thanks @Anne Jeff Neuman: I think we should put something like that in this proposal