Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 06 May 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/2019-05-06+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Please also see the referenced documents at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXK.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM 1: Staff to incorporate edits as discussed into the 2.2.2 Predictability document. ACTION ITEM 2: Gather a small group to further develop the 2.2.2 Predictability document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGr.... Jeff will send out a call for volunteers to the list. Volunteers thus far: Kristina Rosette, Kathy Kleiman and Christopher Wilkinson. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXK...) a. Continued: 2.2.2 Predictability / 2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process: See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGr... -- Note: If we don’t come to consensus on a topic then the status quo will be as it was implemented in 2012. On the record that some do not support that approach. -- There are some different things relating to IRTs that could be new. 2.2.2 Predictability: -- Added bullet: The Predictability Model complements the existing GNSO processes and procedures and shall not in any way operate to be a substitute or replacement for those. In fact, they are incorporated into the Predictability Framework explicitly. Discussion: -- “they” references existing processes and procedures. -- To avoid any doubt in future we might want to add, “In the event of a conflict, existing GNSO processes and procedures take precedent.” -- Change from “shall not in any way operate to be” to “is not intended to be”. What are we proposing: B. Changes to ICANN Organization Internal Processes Discussion: -- Comfortable that we have a distinction for minor changes. -- For the first bullet under (b) -- re: “anything visible” -- what does that encompass? Add “change the application or any of the other processes set forth in the applicant guidebook”. Or “those parts of the application that are scored”? -- Third bullet -- New processes: Some examples have direct relevance for the entire community. Such as a new public comment platform. -- Standing IRT decides what is implementation or policy -- but some WG members disagree. -- Change to “Material adverse impact”? -- Second bullet -- “all non-minor changes” -- in written policy? Answer: The output of this whole thing will eventually be the AGB and if there are changes to the AGB they would be written. -- So not a reasonable response that a process will just take longer -- just being a communication. Seems like there should be more accountability. Add a comment/note to see if that falls under a different category. -- Filter out those things that can be dealt with in a practical matter. -- Third bullet: Need a gateway process before we get to these items. Wherever something affects the underlying rules has huge implications. -- Might need to clarify: “New public comment platform” means changes to the tools being used to submit. The rules for commenting is the same, but the platform is different. -- Second bullet: Not meant to be a change in the timing, but a change in a portal. -- Add a line after bullet three, “These proposed changes are intended to be only those that involve mechanisms with no substantive impact.” Question: How is that different from this text, “but rather a New ICANN Organization Internal Process and it is likely to have a materially [adverse] impact on applicants or community members…” Seems similar in meaning. -- An example of a change that wouldn’t be substantive but could have a material adverse impact would be requiring that Legal Rights Objections be filed through a proprietary platform instead of email. Wouldn't affect the substantive LRO (elements, standing, etc), but there may be some potential objectors that, for one reason or another, can't use that platform. -- Are timelines on filing objections seen as a different type of timeline as a third-party timeline? -- What might be a minor change for one party could be a major change to others. Adverse outcomes -- for whom? Should there be a policy gateway to determine? We don’t have a framework that would be considered to be predictable. -- If there is a gateway then that could delay any changes. -- Overriding principle is predictability. Trying to improve predictability from the last round. C. Fundamental Possible Policy Level Changes Discussion: -- Some examples seem to be out of scope for an IRT. -- Deciding something that is policy: a standing IRT can raise that issue and the GNSO Liaison can take that back to the Council. Any Council member also can raise something for consideration at the Council level. -- So a standing IRT can raise something, but only the Council can decide what is policy or implementation, but it sounds like we are setting up a separate gateway. The standing IRT cannot be the final arbiter, and the Council also can raise it directly. -- Add to the bullet point that the standing IRT can make a recommendation to the GNSO Council as to whether something is policy or implementation, but the GNSO will make the final decision. -- Ensure that this document is cross-referenced to the current policies and processes for IRTs. -- What do we mean by “Staff will collaborate with the community”? Answer: That is meant to first go to the standing IRT, which makes a recommendation for additional consideration, and then the GNSO decides how to handle it -- GNSO Input Process, EPDP, etc. -- Delete this text, “Staff will collaborate with the community to consider the issue and agree upon the mechanism by which the solution will be developed. Options could include:” And emphasize the point that this is meant to be a community+staff decision, not just staff. Mark them as redlined and to be replaced. Come back to this in another WG meeting. -- Helpful to have a workflow diagram for the Predictability Framework once concepts are agreed and reconcile with existing ones from IRT Guidelines. D. Fundamental Possible Policy Level New Proposals Discussion: -- Carry over changes from bullets under C. -- Reaching out to the community means staff reaching out to the standing IRT. But don’t think the standing IRT has the authority to decide if something is a policy or implementation change. Could have a new group that includes members of the IRT, and also Council members, and then decide if it goes to the standing IRT. -- Want to change what we call this because of previous problems with IRTs. Want to get the composition right so it is representative of the community. Meant to ensure that it is a gateway. -- A number of groups supported the recommendations in the Initial Report but also some dissenting views: ACTION: Form a smaller group to further develop this document for the full WG. Volunteers thus far: Kristina Rosette, Kathy Kleiman and Christopher Wilkinson.