It certainly makes sense to copy the GNSO Council. As far as copying the staff, remember that the President and CEO of ICANN’s staff is also a Board member. So, not sure we need to mandate that, but I have no views for or against including that other than to resist our temptation to prescribe every detail. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 5:56 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Jeff, Cheryl, and Steve, Thank you for the diagram! It looks to me as though in order for the SPIRT to work properly, any requests coming directly from the Board would have to be copied to GNSO Council and to ICANN Staff. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:07 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear WG Members, One of the action items from the 18 May WG call was to develop a process flow chart to help illustrate how the SPIRT may operate. Attached, please find a draft prepared by staff and WG leadership. Note, we try to share documents at a minimum, 24 hours ahead of the call, but there was a short turnaround between calls in this instance. Hopefully this document is still helpful to the discussions for the upcoming call. Best. Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: * 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTw..., start at page 10 * Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3, time permitting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

Hi All, I'll second Anne's note that the "language in the middle of the chart does not seem accurate."  My concern is that that, to paraphrase Paul, the SPIRT is being treated as a mini-GNSO or even (my words) a supra-GNSO. I actually think the wording is not to hard to mend -- and the chart is fixable -- but only with clear qualification (and word changes) to show what we already agreed after extensive weeks of discussion: that the SPIRT does not make policy and does not change the way GNSO policy is made. Right now, by the report and the chart, all roads lead to SPIRT, and unless the SPIRT opines then nothing happens on policy issues. But that's not our Multistakeholder process. The idea that all "Issues identified as type C, D and E would generally speaking be expected to be referred to the SPIRT" [middle chart, GNSO Council row] can't be right. This is because D and E are "possible policy level changes." Clearly the GNSO Council can share issues with the SPIRT -- for insight and input -- but this call for the GNSO Council to send everything involving gTLDs to SPIRT to consider first and foremost is misplaced. The GNSO Council can develop policy issue as it sees fit per its rules - and there are several possible paths. The hold of the SPIRT over gTLD policy is further confirmed in the next part of the chart: "However, the GNSO Council may elect to refrain from forwarding an issue to the SPIRT. A non-exhaustive list includes: - The Council does not agree that the issue requires resolution. - The Council believes an issue is unambiguously a policy issue." ==>  All, this is getting close to a "pure policy test." Specifically, the test seems to be that only if the new gTLD issue is "purely policy" does the SPIRT not get the first or major word on the issue.  In our world, however, virtually nothing is purely policy because we are a technical policy community -- even RPMs (as close to pure policy as you can get) have considerable technical and operational elements.  That's D and E (see chart below my signature). But even "C" is a problem -- major operational issues -- "new process [or significant change to internal processes]" -- can introduce changes and implications for already-decided policy; these implications may be not be clear or obvious and, in many cases, should be reviewed widely -- among users and contracted parties. For example, significant changes to the Trademark Clearinghouse could have enormous intended (and unintended) implications for policy and impact on the wide and varied set of users and contracted parties who rely on it.  As many initial processes were created by the Community, and reviewed by the Community, so too should changes along the way be evaluated by the whole community -- that's a GNSO process.  SPIRT may be an input, but should only be one of many. The Predictability Framework can be fixed; it will take some key wording change to re-sets the wording to our carefully-negotiated agreement of some months ago (and not one all agreed to). This way, we can prevent SPIRT from becoming a mini-GNSO or supra-GNSO. Best, Kathy p.s. from SubPro report text: C, D and E C - Operational - new process [or significant change to internal process] D - Possible policy level changes E - Possible policy level new proposals   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aikman-Scalese Anne" To:"Steve Chan" , "Julie Hedlund" , "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" Cc: Sent:Thu, 21 May 2020 19:11:44 +0000 Subject:RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Jeff, Cheryl, Steve et al,   Regarding the process chart, and as discussed on last night’s call, the language in the middle of the chart does not seem accurate.  It says that issues “identified” as fitting in A or B are expected to be decided by ICANN staff.  The issue raised in the call last night was who gets to “identify” what bucket the issue falls in.  I see staff working with the SPIRT to make those recommendations.  SPIRT may agree with staff that an issue falls into A or B, but Staff should not itself have the final call if there’s an issue.  In all cases, buckets A, B, C, D, and E, GNSO Council has the FINAL call.  SPIRT is there to discuss and try to classify which bucket the issue goes in and NOT to make policy if it believes that a policy issue is involved.  It’s not at all workable to have one person on the SPIRT be able to kick an issue up to GNSO as policy if the majority believe it can be handled by staff or handled with GNSO Input or Guidance (rather than through policy-making).  (Remember that any GNSO action always takes precedence over the SPIRT .)   This “sorting into buckets” function is why it is so important for the SPIRT to have members from all parts of the community (which is supposed to be the case for regular  IRTs as per the section I pasted in chat last night – see Section C of IRT Recruitment in the attachment).  It Is clearly NOT working at all to pick and choose different parts of the IRT Guidelines to try to structure the SPIRT as we have done in the current draft.    When you do that, you get “the SPIRT may not be representative” and you leave out FOUNDATIONAL language like “SPIRT recruiting must be very broad and invitations should go to all former regular attending members of the PDP Working Group” which is in Item C of the IRT Guidelines.   For some reason, the draft we have now says the SPIRT team should include at least ONE member of the PDP WG.  Why would there be such emphasis on getting just ONE member of the PDP for this Standing IRT?  And why do we want to emphasize that the SPIRT may not be representative rather than emphasizing that recruitment should be broad as shown in the attached IRT Principles and Guidelines?   (Last night Paul asked to see the IRT Guidelines.  They are attached for your consideration before the next call.)   Donna mentioned that staff runs the IRT process.  The Guidelines for IRTs state that the staff member is the GDD Project Manager.  Every IRT appoints among its members a GNSO Council Liaison.  I’m not sure why we have to call the person heading the SPIRT team a “Chair”.  What is wrong with GNSO Council Liaison?  THE SPIRIT DOES NOT DECIDE ANYTHING, IT SHOULD CONSIDER ANY ISSUE WITH STAFF AND RECOMMEND WHICH BUCKET THE ISSUE BELONGS IN – A, B, C, D, or E.  Staff should not be telling the SPIRT that something that comes up as an issue in the implementation phase will not be coming to the SPIRT because staff believes it fits in A or B.  Staff should be bringing that issue to the SPIRT to see whether the SPIRT agrees that it is in Bucket A or B.   Similarly, Issues that the SPIRT believes fall in C, D, or E, are opportunities for the SPIRT to identify issues, recommend a method of resolving, e.g. use GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, GNSO EPDP, or even GNSO PDP and SEND THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE GNSO COUNCIL.  The SPIRT DOES NOT MAKE POLICY.  It’s a Standing IRT.  It works with staff to make recommendations to process issues in an efficient manner within GNSO guidelines and processes.  All IRT Principles and Guidelines should apply unless there is a clear reason to deviate and so far, I don’t see why we are trying to create a different animal when the Public Comment was – yes, give us a Standing IRT because we know issues arise at later stages. Thank you, Anne   FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg ON BEHALF OF Steve Chan SENT: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:07 PM TO: Julie Hedlund ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org SUBJECT: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes   Dear WG Members,   One of the action items from the 18 May WG call was to develop a process flow chart to help illustrate how the SPIRT may operate. Attached, please find a draft prepared by staff and WG leadership. Note, we try to share documents at a minimum, 24 hours ahead of the call, but there was a short turnaround between calls in this instance. Hopefully this document is still helpful to the discussions for the upcoming call.   Best. Steve     FROM: Gnso-newgtld-wg on behalf of Julie Hedlund DATE: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:46 AM TO: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [3]" SUBJECT: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes   Dear all,   Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on THURSDAY, 21 MAY 2020 AT 03:00 UTC for 90 MINUTES.   PROPOSED AGENDA:   * Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest * Discussion of Final Report Topics: a.       2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTw... [5], start at page 10 b.       Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3, time permitting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [6] * AOB   If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org [7].   Kind regards, Julie   ------------------------- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. Links: ------ [1] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [2] mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org [3] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [4] mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org [5] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTw... [6] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... [7] mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org

Thanks Jeff – this further detail is very helpful and I will carefully review the comparison chart. Re your statement that “if it’s implementation”, the GNSO Council doesn’t get to decide, I feel we need to look back at the letter you penned from GNSO Council to the ICANN Board regarding the “Strawberry Solution”, which Fadi said was implementation and Council (in a letter penned by you) said was policy which REQUIRED ICANN staff to come back to GNSO Council. You keep saying that there will be an “identification” of the issue as either implementation or policy and as fitting into one of your five(5) buckets. From the beginning, I have pointed out that the Policy & Implementation Working Group spent at least 2 years on this and determined that it was not possible to clearly classify issues as one or the other when significant impact to the community was noted by Community members. The fact is that even if ICANN org says something is implementation but the GNSO believes involves significant policy issues, then GNSO will act. The Board itself can override GNSO PDP Recommendations, but when implementation issues arise, ICANN staff is NOT the final say on whether the issue is implementation, as is well proven by your own letter to the ICANN Board contesting Fadi’s characterization of the Strawberry Solution as “implementation.” It would be great if we could stop pretending that there are clear differences (and no grey areas) to issues that arise in the implementation process after applications are received. The SPIRT is recommended precisely because we know these issues WILL arise. That’s why SPIRT should work with ICANN staff when an issue arises in order to (1) sort the issue into a bucket SPIRT sees as reasonable and (2) make a recommendation to GNSO Council as to how to handle the issue, whether that would be to RECOMMEND (not decide) (a) follow staff recommendation, (b) implement in a certain manner which is believed by the SPIRT to reflect the PDP outcome (c) refer to GNSO Council for GNSO Input (d) refer to GNSO Council for GNSO Guidance, (e) refer to GNSO Council for PDP (f) refer to GNSO Council for EPDP So when ISSUES ARISE (usually brought to our attention by staff, but sometimes by GNSO Council or the Board) after applications are received, the SPIRT should work with staff to both (A)Sort as to the recommended bucket and (B) Recommend to GNSO Council the most efficient method for handling the issue in line with the “spirit” of the prior PDP work. Anne From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:25 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ Anne and all, I spent some time documenting the differences<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oGyha09-e9T8CQyfMcm0ch0Tq8jP4AxR1PXD...> between the IRT Principles and the SPIRT outline we have. You will see that we did not “pick and choose” which elements to apply and which we should not. In fact, to the extent that it was applicable, we took the language as is. I think you are now really asking us whether we have copies all of the Working Group guidelines as well as the IRT Principles into the current outline and we have not. Not because we don’t believe it applies, but rather because we were just drafting an outline and leaving the rest of the details to the IRT. If we want to state that the Working Group guidelines apply, we can state that as well. To see the comparison, please go here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oGyha09-e9T8CQyfMcm0ch0Tq8jP4AxR1PXD... The GNSO is “responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws". Operational issues and non-policy issues are not set forth as the jurisdiction of the GNSO in the Bylaws. Therefore, by definition, if an issue is operational, it is not an issue for the GNSO. We may want things to be different, but that is the fact. And that being the case means that if there is agreement that an issue falls into A, B or C, the GNSO Council cannot have the final call. Therefore, if an issue falls into A, B or C, technically, without any other rules set forth, ICANN has the authority to decide without any input at all. However, we are saying that to the extent that any of these changes has a material impact on applicants or the community, there should be additional predictability checks including the involvement of the SPIRT (as set forth in the outline). Why did we want a Chair as opposed to a GDD Project Manager? We discussed previously having a Chair, because unlike an “IRT” which operates for a limited period of time, this is a Standing Committee which is permanent. Project managers at ICANN come and go depending on the “project”. It made sense from a continuity standpoint to have a Chair and Vice Chairs. There was also previous discussion in the Working Group that they did not want it to be an ICANN person because there could be bias in having it chaired by ICANN especially in classifying issues as operational or policy, etc. Hope this helps. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 3:12 PM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Jeff, Cheryl, Steve et al, Regarding the process chart, and as discussed on last night’s call, the language in the middle of the chart does not seem accurate. It says that issues “identified” as fitting in A or B are expected to be decided by ICANN staff. The issue raised in the call last night was who gets to “identify” what bucket the issue falls in. I see staff working with the SPIRT to make those recommendations. SPIRT may agree with staff that an issue falls into A or B, but Staff should not itself have the final call if there’s an issue. In all cases, buckets A, B, C, D, and E, GNSO Council has the FINAL call. SPIRT is there to discuss and try to classify which bucket the issue goes in and NOT to make policy if it believes that a policy issue is involved. It’s not at all workable to have one person on the SPIRT be able to kick an issue up to GNSO as policy if the majority believe it can be handled by staff or handled with GNSO Input or Guidance (rather than through policy-making). (Remember that any GNSO action always takes precedence over the SPIRT .) This “sorting into buckets” function is why it is so important for the SPIRT to have members from all parts of the community (which is supposed to be the case for regular IRTs as per the section I pasted in chat last night – see Section C of IRT Recruitment in the attachment). It Is clearly NOT working at all to pick and choose different parts of the IRT Guidelines to try to structure the SPIRT as we have done in the current draft. When you do that, you get “the SPIRT may not be representative” and you leave out FOUNDATIONAL language like “SPIRT recruiting must be very broad and invitations should go to all former regular attending members of the PDP Working Group” which is in Item C of the IRT Guidelines. For some reason, the draft we have now says the SPIRT team should include at least ONE member of the PDP WG. Why would there be such emphasis on getting just ONE member of the PDP for this Standing IRT? And why do we want to emphasize that the SPIRT may not be representative rather than emphasizing that recruitment should be broad as shown in the attached IRT Principles and Guidelines? (Last night Paul asked to see the IRT Guidelines. They are attached for your consideration before the next call.) Donna mentioned that staff runs the IRT process. The Guidelines for IRTs state that the staff member is the GDD Project Manager. Every IRT appoints among its members a GNSO Council Liaison. I’m not sure why we have to call the person heading the SPIRT team a “Chair”. What is wrong with GNSO Council Liaison? THE SPIRIT DOES NOT DECIDE ANYTHING, IT SHOULD CONSIDER ANY ISSUE WITH STAFF AND RECOMMEND WHICH BUCKET THE ISSUE BELONGS IN – A, B, C, D, or E. Staff should not be telling the SPIRT that something that comes up as an issue in the implementation phase will not be coming to the SPIRT because staff believes it fits in A or B. Staff should be bringing that issue to the SPIRT to see whether the SPIRT agrees that it is in Bucket A or B. Similarly, Issues that the SPIRT believes fall in C, D, or E, are opportunities for the SPIRT to identify issues, recommend a method of resolving, e.g. use GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, GNSO EPDP, or even GNSO PDP and send that recommendation to the GNSO Council. The SPIRT DOES NOT MAKE POLICY. It’s a Standing IRT. It works with staff to make recommendations to process issues in an efficient manner within GNSO guidelines and processes. All IRT Principles and Guidelines should apply unless there is a clear reason to deviate and so far, I don’t see why we are trying to create a different animal when the Public Comment was – yes, give us a Standing IRT because we know issues arise at later stages. Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:07 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear WG Members, One of the action items from the 18 May WG call was to develop a process flow chart to help illustrate how the SPIRT may operate. Attached, please find a draft prepared by staff and WG leadership. Note, we try to share documents at a minimum, 24 hours ahead of the call, but there was a short turnaround between calls in this instance. Hopefully this document is still helpful to the discussions for the upcoming call. Best. Steve From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:46 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 21 May at 03:00 UTC for 90 Minutes Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: * 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTw..., start at page 10 * Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3, time permitting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLu... 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.