Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 09 January at 2000 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/2020-01-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro... Kind regards, Emily Notes and Action Items: Actions: Predictability Framework: ACTION ITEM 1: Look at GNSO Operating Procedures concerning rules for WG and other group membership. ACTION ITEM 2: WG members should review the process flow chart. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: None provided. 2. Predictability Framework: a. Proposed Answers to Open Questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISHJ... – Start at Section 7 7. Composition of the SPIRT -- Generally taken from the notion of IRTs. -- Emphasize that membership in the group should have representativeness but even more important that the members have some sort of knowledge and experience to tackle unique issues. -- Re: IRTs - One is the minimum. There
s nothing that discourages other WG or IOT members from joining SPIRT. -- We may want to sunset that provision after 2-3 years. -- Question: Not clear what the difference is between the SPIRT concept and the IRT concept. Why do we need both? Answer: An IRT comes into existence after a set of policies are approved by the ICANN Board, but its work ends when the policy is implemented, in this case when the final version of the AGB is published. There is no concept of a post launch team -- which is what this is, to be constituted after implementation/launch. -- Question: What value added do we get from the SPIRT concept? Answer: This does not exclude any other mechanism of providing guidance to ICANN Board. It is just a tool for the GNSO Council to deal with issues that arise after the launch of the program. -- Missing an area here about concerns about the SPIRT -- this should be a new section -- that this group would be dominated by the contracted parties. We should also include a 1-year review. -- I agree with Christopher about setting this SPIRT up, not because of the reasons that he puts forth, but because if people can still take their issues to the Board, GAC, etc., I don't see what the point of the SPIRT is. It looks like just another place for people to lobby for post-AGB changes. -- Why not just extend the IRT? -- Requirement for Statement of Participation (last bullet). -- I think the SPIRT is meant to address issues more quickly and in some cases, add special expertise quickly. However, I am very concerned that it not be used to block other existing mechanisms. As heather pointed out, existing mechanisms should be used where possible. These include Input and Guidance. So we don't want a conflict where, for example, CPH votes send it to SPIRT and NCPH votes use GNSO Guidance process. -- I'm luke warm about the notion of the SPIRIT, but I really don't understand why we are being so prescriptive about things like composition, length of service etc. -- Question: Is it mentioned whether participation in SPIRT allows observers?
 Or not?
 Answer: Might come up when we talk about the issue of confidentiality. -- IMHO, the prescriptiveness comes from trying to solve for various problems, including the ones just raised on this call. -- The original Concept on which we sought public comment was Standing IRT - I think the SPIRT is supposed to be a Standing IRT. public comment went in support of that. -- Nuance for the Predictability Framework: There are two pieces: 1) triage mechanism that helps determine how the issue is resolved; 2) who wields that triage mechanism, in this case it is the SPIRT, the party that is utilizing that framework. -- Is there a less process-bound way to refer policy vs implementation issues to a small team? 8. Additional subject matter expertise -- Generally in the WG Guidelines. -- Preference for subject matter experts to be members. -- Need to make sure that applicants who aren’t part of a stakeholder group could still be members and participate assuming they have the expertise. 9. Length of term of SPIRT members? -- Should be too much emphasis on rapid turnover, but encourage some level of turnover. 10. Role of the SPIRT member (representative vs independent judgement) -- When we have to assess the level of consensus it will be to represent the formal position of the stakeholder group (similar to the EPDP charter). -- Need to be clear when we are saying they are representing the formal positions does that mean that those organizations have to take formal positions? -- The person is expected to represent the known position of the group, it’s not that they have to go back to their groups. -- Shouldn’t we just say that for consensus calls the SPIRT will presume that the members are representing their group’s position. -- Question: Support for members acting in an individual capacity although representing a group? Answer: We should be putting people on here that understand new gTLDs and new gTLD policy -- appoint someone you trust and assume they will do the right thing. -- The SCBO and SSC both have non-Councillors as members. Wonder if we could think about using an existing mechanism rather than creating something new and bespoke for this if we don’t need to. -- If we only look for existing infrastructure then the option for those outside of the GNSO might be lost. -- The GNSO Operating Procedures don’t talk about standing committees in a prescriptive manner. -- Maybe concentrate on the principles that should be adhered to -- the more direct way to achieve this is to concentrate on what it should do, rather than saying who should do it (such as the SPIRT). -- To make things more predictable we are defining how that group will operate. -- So let's word the recommendation that "The Council should form a standing committee to achieve the following: ..."
 -- If the group is representative, SOs and ACs can choose to put a Councilor on it or not. It's up the SO/AC. and Cherly and Donna are correct that there must be a way for non-GNSO types to participate and for those unaffiliated with ICANN SOs and ACs.
 The group should function like a Standing IRT. -- Perhaps we are getting too much into implementation; instead maybe we should create some principles -- take this up a level. -- Public comment was in support of a standing IRT, but now we are talking about something more than that. -- The public comment process would benefit from prescriptive draft recommendations or questions. -- I’m not opposed to being more specific. Just wanted to float the idea of a higher level approach. I can see the merits of both approaches. Maybe we need to be surgically less specific. ACTION ITEM: Look at GNSO Operating Procedures concerning rules for WG and other group membership. 11. Conflicts of interest procedures -- We had stated that this group should require a more specific statement than the SOIs for WG, such as having additional questions. By way of example, please see the additional questions associated with Auction Proceeds. A more detailed SOI is needed for the SPIRT. 12. Confidentiality obligations -- Support for the activities to be open/transparent, but there is a mechanism for confidentiality. 13. ICANN Staff role and level of participation -- From EPDP Charter. 14. SPIRT Leadership -- From WG Guidelines. 15. Role of Public Comment -- May want to change that. Doesn’t just operate by consensus. It’s supposed to give its advice on the issue. -- Probably need to modify this section. b. Process Flow Chart (attached) ACTION ITEM: WG members should review the process flow chart. 3. String Contention Mechanisms of Last Resort (time permitting): https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTj... Policy Goals / What the WG is Seeking to Accomplish -- Not necessary possible to implement solutions that enhance every one of these goals. -- Spent time discussing the specific mechanisms. Want to discuss the goals and which are more important than the others. Other goals include: 1. Reduce the risk of “bidding wars” in which the winner ultimately overpays for the TLD. a. Tentative, related goal for discussion: encourage applicants to bid their true value for a TLD. 1. Reduce collusion, profiteering, and/or speculation, especially as it relates to financial transactions external to the program (Note, while this is not an explicit goal for the mechanisms of last resort, it has been discussed as a motivation for altering the auction mechanism). 2. Increase transparency. 3. Resolve contention more quickly. 4. Increase predictability. 5. Encourage new entrants into the field. Which could include, making it easier to implement “multipliers” for certain types of applicants, such as those eligible for Applicant Support. 1. Increase efficiencies in application evaluation by way of understanding the contention set? Note that some of the terminology may need to be further defined if the above goals are adopted. In order to ensure that recommendations align with goals, it is important for the Working Group to agree on specific objectives. Discussion: -- Concern about the use of the term “collusion” in #2. We will check to see where that term came from. -- Add new #8: “Increase creativity in the resolution of contention sets.” Related: Include as a possible goal that we want to encourage private resolution of contention sets. If we don’t want to do this then creativity may be less important. -- Section is called “other goals” which acknowledges that we’ve maintained the main goals. -- Should produce one set of goals and not call some “other goals”. Continue the numbering from the original goals. -- In terms of goal number 1 -- wondering whether we should consider making it a bit more vague -- “unintended consequences from bidding wars”. Not sure preventing overpaying should be a stated goal.