Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the working sessions on 27 October at 03:00 UTC. 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/2020-10-27+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Action Items: General Comments: RySG comment: ACTION ITEM re: Implementation Guidance 24.4: Add a recommendation that a question should be asked of what's within the scope of the intended use and what is specifically excluded if anything from the scope of the intended use. ACTION ITEM: Add RySG’s second and third comments to the Community Applications section (Topic 34). Nameshop Comment: ACTION ITEM: Add the Nameshop comment to the Applications Assessed in Rounds section (Topic 3). ICANN Org Comment: ACTION ITEM: Staff and Leadership to review the report to see where processes and procedures are mentioned in the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance and we'll see how big of a task it is to make the usage consistent. Predictability: NCSG and other comments re: Review: ACTION ITEM: Staff and Leadership to develop proposed language for the SPIRT that encompasses these points: 1) Need to have some kind of review of the Predictability Framework early on; 2) that review doesn’t stop the work of the SPIRT, and 3) that review is under the supervision of the GNSO Council, 4) it should be lean and focused (look at Customer Standing Committee reviews as example). NCSG comment and others re: GNSO Operating Procedures taking precedent over the SPIRT: ACTION ITEM: Move from Implementation Guidance to a Recommendation that the GNSO Operating Procedures take precedent over the SPIRT. France-GAC and GAC re: role in SPIRT/need for SPIRT: ACTION ITEM: Take this discussion to the list. ICANN Board and ICANN org comments: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review and bring questions back to the WG on the list. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: -- Jeff Neuman has been appointed by the GNSO Council as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC. -- Olga Cavalli and Javier Rua have been appointed to the Nominating Committee. -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr will continue as the Liaison from the At-Large Advisory Committee to the GNSO. -- Greg Shatan is now a member of the At-Large Advisory Committee. 2. Introduce the Working Method for Reviewing Public Comments/Work Plan:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5KnP... Work Plan: -- Multiple subjects for each meeting. -- Not reading through every comment. -- Everyone should have read the comments in advance of the meetings. -- Leadership will provide their input prior to a meeting in the appropriate column of the Public Comment Review Tool concerning the comments and questions worthy of a conversation. -- Focus on those comments that present something new or a question the WG needs to address. -- Goal is to put these subjects to rest and finalize the Final Report; not to do major rewrites. -- May move meetings to 2 hours. 3. Review draft Final Report Public Comments – to prepare see the links to the Public Comment Review Tool on the wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Published+Draft+reports and review the following topics: a. General Comments: -- Staff will note the comments about the public comment survey tool. -- If there are a significant number of commenters who raise an issue, even it has already been addressed by the WG, the WG should still consider it. Row 12: Question: Are there any additional recommendations that you believe the Working Group should consider making? Row 17: RySG: 1. “Given the importance of the “intended use” of the string in the String Similarity Evaluations, and perhaps other aspects of the evaluation of applications, there should be a specific question for this in the Applicant Guidebook (AG). In the 2012 AG Question 18a was, “Describe the mission/purpose of your proposed gTLD and this should be extended to describe the mission/purpose/intended use. If it’s not in the question itself, it must be in the notes accompanying it and the primary purpose of this is to unambiguously understand the intended use and to prevent the need to ask a Clarifying Question. This relates to Implementation Guidance 24.4 on page 104 of the Final Draft.” Leadership Comments: Seems like a good clarification and in line with WG Recommendations. Discussion: -- Could ask the reverse question: “Are there any uses which are outside of your intended use?” If we adopt the suggested question, consider also adopting the reverse question. -- The WG could say that there should be a question about intended use but without providing the text of the question. -- The recommendation could be that there should be a question on intended use and then point to a couple of sections where intended use is important. -- Add a recommendation that a question should be asked of what's within the scope of the intended use and what is specifically excluded if anything from the scope of the intended use. Leave it to the IRT to draft the question. ACTION ITEM re: Implementation Guidance 24.4: Add a recommendation that a question should be asked of what's within the scope of the intended use and what is specifically excluded if anything from the scope of the intended use. Row 17: RySG: “2. Conversion of Application from Community to Standard. If an applicant applies as a community, and during CPE it is determined by ICANN’s evaluator, that a community does not exist to move forward with the community application, then the applicant should have the ability to amend its application to a standard application and proceed on equal footing with standard applicants in the normal process.” Leadership comments: Probably a question we should consider in CPE section (New Question). Row 17: RySG: “3. To prevent a type of gaming, applicants or their affiliates should not be permitted to file both a community and a standard application for the same string.” Leadership Comment: This is a new question we have not yet considered. Does WG want to address? ACTION ITEM: Add RySG’s second and third comments to the Community Applications section (Topic 34). Row 23: Nameshop comment: Leadership Comment: This is new information that relates to Applications assessed in Rounds But also may be relevant to when a round is deemed "closed". Discussion: -- WG could consider not allowing applications for strings that are marked “will not proceed, unless there is some clarity or a check with both the applicant and ICANN. -- This is not something the WG has considered. Assumed that “will not proceed” meant that it is deemed to be a final decision. -- ICANN org notes that they can be in “will not proceed” status from a program perspective and still be in the cooperative engagement process. -- Application status definitions used are here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-s.... -- Two points: 1) The WG could set the principle that so long as an application is still in or could possibly be like within the statute of limitations of appeals or accountability mechanisms that we should not allow a string to proceed. 2) where there is a difference of an opinion between what ICANN org believes is past that period and has been exhausted and the applicant disagrees/disputes. -- Think we have to rely on ICANN’s position and the result of the dispute resolution mechanism. -- If we make a statement or change the report relating to this comment we need to make sure we are using generalities, not specifics. ACTION ITEM: Add the Nameshop comment to the Applications Assessed in Rounds section (Topic 3). Row 27: ICANN Org: Leadership Comments: #2 - Consider More details around transparency when they are mentioned. #3 - Look at these specific recommendations / Implementation Guidance to ensure "hooks" are intentional or not. #4 - Move to Predictability #5 ICANN Org distinguishes between Processes and Procedures and believes that processes are for the AGB, whereas procedures are to be developed after the AGB. We need to either explicitly state that that was not our intent (where applicable) or change wording in line with ICANN Org interpretation. Discussion: -- We may want to add more details in specific sections that call for more transparency. -- Need to clarify in places whether we really meant Implementation Guidance as part of a recommendation (and so mandatory) or Implementation Guidance as just guidance. -- ICANN org has a very specific definition of “process” which is something that is higher level view than what is in the AGB. Also, their definition of “procedure” is operationally focused. -- We use the terms interchangeably. We can decide to apply ICANN’s definition or decide to reject it. -- ICANN org: It’s about expectations – what we think should happen when we get a Recommendation or Implementation Guidance. ACTION ITEM: Staff and Leadership to review the report to see where processes and procedures are mentioned in the Recommendations and Implementation Guidance and we'll see how big of a task it is to make the usage consistent. b. Predictability: Row 11: NCSG and other comments re: Review Leadership Comments: 1. Several Comments discuss having an annual review (NCSG, Article 19, GAC). Though annual reviews seem excessive and will put the SPIRT in constant state of review, this is a new question and we should discuss whether to have reviews and if so how often? 2. The idea that GNSO Procedures take precedence show up in several comments, so this is something we may want to clarify as it has always been the intent. Discussion: -- There are several comments that call for an annual or periodic review. -- We could just say that the GNSO can review it in accordance with the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF). -- Should do a sanity check a year or two into the implementation of the SPIRT, or at least some level of review before the third round starts, or until sufficient time has passed to have data to review. -- Maybe we need to say that the GNSO Council has the responsibility to make sure the program is working. -- Three points: 1) Need to have some kind of review early on; 2) that review doesn’t stop the work of the SPIRT, and 3) that review is under the supervision of the GNSO Council, 4) it should be lean and focused. ACTION ITEM: Staff and Leadership to develop proposed language for the SPIRT that encompasses these points: 1) Need to have some kind of review of the Predictability Framework early on; 2) that review doesn’t stop the work of the SPIRT, and 3) that review is under the supervision of the GNSO Council, 4) it should be lean and focused (look at Customer Standing Committee reviews as example). Row 11: NCSG and Row 19: IPC comments re: GNSO Operating Procedures taking precedent over the SPIRT: ACTION ITEM: Move from Implementation Guidance to a Recommendation that the GNSO Operating Procedures take precedent over the SPIRT. Row 13: BC re: representation in the SPIRT Leadership Comments: The SPIRT rules are the same as normal IRT rules. Do we want to mandate representation? Should we specify that the IRT set forth the qualifications for serving on the SPIRT. Discussion: -- Could let the IRT decide what are the qualifications for being a member of the SPIRT. -- Or, does the WG want to spell out qualifications, in which case we’ll need to brainstorm on the list. Row 15: France-GAC and Row 23: GAC re: role in SPIRT/need for SPIRT: Leadership Comments: Several Governments and the GAC comments reflect a desire to be able to refer matters directly to the SPIRT? Do we want to reconsider this? Do we want to suggest a GAC liaison to the SPIRT? Discussion: -- We talked about this before. Not something we need to revisit. -- Might be worth rethinking this as another avenue for the GAC other than Consensus Advice to the Board. -- What’s the harm in allowing the GAC to bring something to the SPIRT? The SPIRT is not obliged to take action. ACTION ITEM: Take this discussion to the list. Row 22: ICANN Board and Row 24: ICANN org comments: ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review and bring questions back to the WG on the list.