It seems that calling the Standing IRT something else would be beneficial to avoid the confusion with the policy meaning of IRTs. Perhaps SORP - Standing Operation Review Panel ? As for the IRT, it's safe to assume that everyone here knows an C, SG, AC or SO leader to convey the suggestion either that having an IRT is preferred or that not having an IRT is preferred, so the Council can act accordingly. The fact that this is not in the charter only means it can't be in the final report, not that there is a gag order on whether the undertaking of an IRT is worthwhile in implement this policy. Rubens

Em 28 de mar de 2019, à(s) 19:29:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> escreveu:

Thanks Jeff – your summary below makes sense, except that I was operating under the assumption that the next round will have an IRT. It sounds as though you are saying that GNSO Council may choose (by a vote I guess) not to constitute an IRT to guide implementation of the next round. ( It seems the current version of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework would permit GNSO Council to forego the IRT.)

I wonder if others in the Working Group assume an IRT will be available to assist with and resolve implementation issues. This is important since an IRT normally has broad community representation. But perhaps the reason staff public comment was keen to have us clarify that they are authorized to resolve any issues arising during implementation was because they know they may not have an IRT available.

If we are going so far as to recommend a standing IRT at some point in the next round, it cannot be outside our jurisdiction to recommend that GNSO institute an IRT in connection with the Implementation Phase . (I thought I saw “constituting an IRT” on the timeline that you shared with the GAC but maybe I am just dreaming. Can you please send us all that timeline?)

The two questions discussed on our call were whether an IRT can have input into (1) the types of change requests that need public comment and (2) the drafting of the Applicant Guidebook. These questions pale in comparison to the general procedural question as to whether or not we recommend an IRT be constituted.

I can say without a doubt as an active member of the Policy & Implementation Working Group that throughout those discussions, it was recognized that staff would be able to bring implementation issues to IRT members and that IRT members would be able to bring implementation issues to Council’s attention if necessary – specifically for consideration as to whether the issue raised during implementation might require the new formal procedures we were recommending, especially GNSO Input or GNSO Guidance , both now contained in the Annexes to the PDP Manual. (You may recall this process arose because GNSO Council objected, in the form of a letter authored by you and sent to the ICANN Board, to Fadi Chehade’s characterization of the “Strawman Solution” protecting IP rights as “implementation”, not policy. In other words, the “Strawman Solution” was an ICANN org decision that GNSO Council objected to strenuously. The letter said to the Board, “if you are going to change policy like that, you have to come back to the Council.)

Bottom line: If there is an IRT, proper questions will be raised during implementation and the drafting of the revised Applicant Guidebook. You seem to be saying there may not be an IRT for implementation of changes for the next round and you are apparently also saying this WG cannot recommend to Council that an IRT be constituted, that such a recommendation would somehow be “outside our jurisdiction”. (That suggestion as to jurisdiction, again, is quite strange given we ARE recommending a Standing IRT for a later phase.)

I guess we have never asked for public comment on the issue of whether or not we should be recommending that the GNSO institute an IRT in the implementation phase. Some public commenters could well have been confused into believing that the “general agreement” on the recommended Standing IRT would be as a continuation of the Implementation Phase IRT. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 6:20 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team

[EXTERNAL]

During the Call this week, some questions arose regarding our role vis a vis an eventual PDP Implementation Review Team (IRT) that may be established once our work is completed and approved by the GNSO Council. This issue has been discussed with and reviewed by Elsa and Flip (our GNSO Council Liaisons).

The role of the IRT is as laid out in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf <https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf>) (CPIF). A PDP IRT is intended to support ICANN’s Global Domains Division (GDD) in implementation without revisiting policy discussions. More specifically, an IRT, if convened by the GNSO Council, “serve[s] as a resource to implementation staff on policy and technical questions that arise.” This is also described in Annex L of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/policy-implementation/piwg-final-recommenda... <https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/policy-implementation/piwg-final-recommenda...>).

The CPIF makes it clear that GDD manages the implementation. An IRT, if constituted, will review the work of GDD it in the spirit of how the PDP intended the recommendations to be. Our role as the PDP WG is to develop detailed policy recommendations. In addition to policy recommendations, we have the ability to recommend “implementation guidance” as the PDP Working Group. Implementation Guidance, as discussed on our call, are those areas where we want to create a strong presumption that GDD should implement our recommendation unless there is a compelling reason that they are unable to do so. It is certainly stronger than a directive that GDD should “try” to implement our recommendations, but also leaves flexibility to an IRT and GDD staff to go in a different direction if necessary.

The specific question raised on the call involved a PDP IRT’s role in drafting the actual language to be included in the Applicant Guidebook. The short answer is that the Working Group Chairs, ICANN Policy Staff, and our GNSO Council Liaisons are if the opinion that this question is beyond the scope of our Working Group. More precisely this will be an issue discussed by the GNSO Council and GDD if and when an IRT is established. Our focus should be to create detailed policy recommendations (that ICANN/GDD MUST implement) and where appropriate, Implementation Guidance, that ICANN SHOULD implement in consultation with an IRT (if applicable).

***Please note that this relates to a PDP IRT and not to a potential Standing IRT discussed in our draft Predictability Model which, if adopted, would serve as a standing panel constituted after launch of the next round to assist with issues that arise after the launch.***

We hop this helps. Huge thanks to Elsa and Flip for following up on this issue.

Best regards,

Jeff Neuman & Cheryl Langdon Orr SubPro PDP Co-Chairs

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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>

I think maybe that if I am a registry or registrar Council member, I just vote “NO IRT” in the Implementation Phase cause that might slow things down. (let’s get this next round going!) How is it that our Charter permits numerous recommendations for “Implementation Guidance” and permits a recommendation for a standing IRT after launch, but somehow prohibits a recommendation for an IRT during the Implementation Phase? From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 4:11 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ It seems that calling the Standing IRT something else would be beneficial to avoid the confusion with the policy meaning of IRTs. Perhaps SORP - Standing Operation Review Panel ? As for the IRT, it's safe to assume that everyone here knows an C, SG, AC or SO leader to convey the suggestion either that having an IRT is preferred or that not having an IRT is preferred, so the Council can act accordingly. The fact that this is not in the charter only means it can't be in the final report, not that there is a gag order on whether the undertaking of an IRT is worthwhile in implement this policy. Rubens Em 28 de mar de 2019, à(s) 19:29:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: Thanks Jeff – your summary below makes sense, except that I was operating under the assumption that the next round will have an IRT. It sounds as though you are saying that GNSO Council may choose (by a vote I guess) not to constitute an IRT to guide implementation of the next round. ( It seems the current version of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework would permit GNSO Council to forego the IRT.) I wonder if others in the Working Group assume an IRT will be available to assist with and resolve implementation issues. This is important since an IRT normally has broad community representation. But perhaps the reason staff public comment was keen to have us clarify that they are authorized to resolve any issues arising during implementation was because they know they may not have an IRT available. If we are going so far as to recommend a standing IRT at some point in the next round, it cannot be outside our jurisdiction to recommend that GNSO institute an IRT in connection with the Implementation Phase . (I thought I saw “constituting an IRT” on the timeline that you shared with the GAC but maybe I am just dreaming. Can you please send us all that timeline?) The two questions discussed on our call were whether an IRT can have input into (1) the types of change requests that need public comment and (2) the drafting of the Applicant Guidebook. These questions pale in comparison to the general procedural question as to whether or not we recommend an IRT be constituted. I can say without a doubt as an active member of the Policy & Implementation Working Group that throughout those discussions, it was recognized that staff would be able to bring implementation issues to IRT members and that IRT members would be able to bring implementation issues to Council’s attention if necessary – specifically for consideration as to whether the issue raised during implementation might require the new formal procedures we were recommending, especially GNSO Input or GNSO Guidance , both now contained in the Annexes to the PDP Manual. (You may recall this process arose because GNSO Council objected, in the form of a letter authored by you and sent to the ICANN Board, to Fadi Chehade’s characterization of the “Strawman Solution” protecting IP rights as “implementation”, not policy. In other words, the “Strawman Solution” was an ICANN org decision that GNSO Council objected to strenuously. The letter said to the Board, “if you are going to change policy like that, you have to come back to the Council.) Bottom line: If there is an IRT, proper questions will be raised during implementation and the drafting of the revised Applicant Guidebook. You seem to be saying there may not be an IRT for implementation of changes for the next round and you are apparently also saying this WG cannot recommend to Council that an IRT be constituted, that such a recommendation would somehow be “outside our jurisdiction”. (That suggestion as to jurisdiction, again, is quite strange given we ARE recommending a Standing IRT for a later phase.) I guess we have never asked for public comment on the issue of whether or not we should be recommending that the GNSO institute an IRT in the implementation phase. Some public commenters could well have been confused into believing that the “general agreement” on the recommended Standing IRT would be as a continuation of the Implementation Phase IRT. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 6:20 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ During the Call this week, some questions arose regarding our role vis a vis an eventual PDP Implementation Review Team (IRT) that may be established once our work is completed and approved by the GNSO Council. This issue has been discussed with and reviewed by Elsa and Flip (our GNSO Council Liaisons). The role of the IRT is as laid out in the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf) (CPIF). A PDP IRT is intended to support ICANN’s Global Domains Division (GDD) in implementation without revisiting policy discussions. More specifically, an IRT, if convened by the GNSO Council, “serve[s] as a resource to implementation staff on policy and technical questions that arise.” This is also described in Annex L of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/policy-implementation/piwg-final-recommenda...). The CPIF makes it clear that GDD manages the implementation. An IRT, if constituted, will review the work of GDD it in the spirit of how the PDP intended the recommendations to be. Our role as the PDP WG is to develop detailed policy recommendations. In addition to policy recommendations, we have the ability to recommend “implementation guidance” as the PDP Working Group. Implementation Guidance, as discussed on our call, are those areas where we want to create a strong presumption that GDD should implement our recommendation unless there is a compelling reason that they are unable to do so. It is certainly stronger than a directive that GDD should “try” to implement our recommendations, but also leaves flexibility to an IRT and GDD staff to go in a different direction if necessary. The specific question raised on the call involved a PDP IRT’s role in drafting the actual language to be included in the Applicant Guidebook. The short answer is that the Working Group Chairs, ICANN Policy Staff, and our GNSO Council Liaisons are if the opinion that this question is beyond the scope of our Working Group. More precisely this will be an issue discussed by the GNSO Council and GDD if and when an IRT is established. Our focus should be to create detailed policy recommendations (that ICANN/GDD MUST implement) and where appropriate, Implementation Guidance, that ICANN SHOULD implement in consultation with an IRT (if applicable). ***Please note that this relates to a PDP IRT and not to a potential Standing IRT discussed in our draft Predictability Model which, if adopted, would serve as a standing panel constituted after launch of the next round to assist with issues that arise after the launch.*** We hop this helps. Huge thanks to Elsa and Flip for following up on this issue. Best regards, Jeff Neuman & Cheryl Langdon Orr SubPro PDP Co-Chairs ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ 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.

All, Lets please keep the tone civil on these discussions and not assume that there will be malice on any side. I think we should expect that everyone will have good intentions in deciding what needs to be done. All of that said, Steve is correct. The wording I used was intention to convey that the Council in theory could elect not to constitute an IRT, but I think as past experience has shown (and even for the ePDP), the Council does tend to constitute IRTs and I can’t imagine this circumstance would be any different. But that is not a decision for this Working Group. I do agree with Rubens on the point that we may want to come up with another name for what we are now calling the “Standing IRT Panel” because it can easily get confused with the PDP IRT. Standing Operation Review Panel (SORP) doesn’t sound quite right though not just because of the funny sounding Acronym, but also because it may be looking at non-operational things. Perhaps something with Advisory in it. I first thought of TLD Advisory Review Team, but TART is much worse 😊 Perhaps TLD Advisory Panel (TAP)? Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team Em 28 de mar de 2019, à(s) 20:39:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: I think maybe that if I am a registry or registrar Council member, I just vote “NO IRT” in the Implementation Phase cause that might slow things down. (let’s get this next round going!) Isn't that awful when Council members vote based only thinking of their constituencies instead of the greater good ? Guess what, this happened a few weeks ago. And it wasn't done by CPH councillors. How is it that our Charter permits numerous recommendations for “Implementation Guidance” and permits a recommendation for a standing IRT after launch, but somehow prohibits a recommendation for an IRT during the Implementation Phase? I believe Steve already covered this. Rubens

Thanks Jeff. Although your comments and Steve’s are helpful, I am pretty sure the public comments on Standing IRT were based on the notion we all understand as setting up an IRT prior to launch and then continuing that body through the launch process and afterward. (I would appreciate clarifying comments from others as to their understanding.) Coming up with another name for the Standing IRT “post public comment period” does not necessarily make up for that, though it could be helpful in the follow-up public comment period for limited topics. It would also help a lot if you could explain very simply what you think is “outside the jurisdiction” of the Working Group: 1. Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend to GNSO Council that an IRT be constituted? 2. Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend IRT involvement with the revised AGB before it is published? (I think most WG participants would be expecting this involvement.) 3. . Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend that the IRT be tasked with helping determine which “change requests” should be subject to public comment? (In that case, we might have to consider the issue of which change requests should require public comment in the Working Group itself. Here, the IRT solution seems preferable given our timeline.) Unfortunately, these questions become necessary since they are basic procedural issues underlying the assumptions made in all of our WG recommendations. We all need to be on the same page as to how “Implementation Guidance” will be used and whether or not there will be “checks and balances” that normally operate within a system where staff is consulting with a broadly representative IRT prior to launch and during the drafting of the revised AGB. Anne From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:50 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Lets please keep the tone civil on these discussions and not assume that there will be malice on any side. I think we should expect that everyone will have good intentions in deciding what needs to be done. All of that said, Steve is correct. The wording I used was intention to convey that the Council in theory could elect not to constitute an IRT, but I think as past experience has shown (and even for the ePDP), the Council does tend to constitute IRTs and I can’t imagine this circumstance would be any different. But that is not a decision for this Working Group. I do agree with Rubens on the point that we may want to come up with another name for what we are now calling the “Standing IRT Panel” because it can easily get confused with the PDP IRT. Standing Operation Review Panel (SORP) doesn’t sound quite right though not just because of the funny sounding Acronym, but also because it may be looking at non-operational things. Perhaps something with Advisory in it. I first thought of TLD Advisory Review Team, but TART is much worse 😊 Perhaps TLD Advisory Panel (TAP)? Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team Em 28 de mar de 2019, à(s) 20:39:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: I think maybe that if I am a registry or registrar Council member, I just vote “NO IRT” in the Implementation Phase cause that might slow things down. (let’s get this next round going!) Isn't that awful when Council members vote based only thinking of their constituencies instead of the greater good ? Guess what, this happened a few weeks ago. And it wasn't done by CPH councillors. How is it that our Charter permits numerous recommendations for “Implementation Guidance” and permits a recommendation for a standing IRT after launch, but somehow prohibits a recommendation for an IRT during the Implementation Phase? I believe Steve already covered this. Rubens ________________________________ 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.

Anne, Hopefully my answers can clarify a few things. Answers are in Red below. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 4:17 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Flip Petillion (fpetillion@petillion.law) <fpetillion@petillion.law> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team Thanks Jeff. Although your comments and Steve’s are helpful, I am pretty sure the public comments on Standing IRT were based on the notion we all understand as setting up an IRT prior to launch and then continuing that body through the launch process and afterward. (I would appreciate clarifying comments from others as to their understanding.) Coming up with another name for the Standing IRT “post public comment period” does not necessarily make up for that, though it could be helpful in the follow-up public comment period for limited topics. [Jeff] The Initial Report stated the following recommendations: “2.2.2.c.1: Currently, as a result of consensus recommendations made by the GNSO, the ICANN Board endorsed the GNSO’s Policy and Implementation Recommendations, including those related to the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)12 for governing the implementation phase of GNSO policies. If issues arise during this phase, the GNSO could seek to utilize the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process or the GNSO Guidance Process, as defined in the ICANN Bylaws. However, there is support in the Working Group for a recommendation that the New gTLD Program, once launched (i.e., after the Implementation Review Team), should be subject to a new Predictability Framework, to address issues that arise regarding the introduction of new gTLDs. Among other recommendations, the Working Group believes that as part of the Predictability Framework, a Standing Implementation Review Team (IRT) should be constituted after the publication of the Applicant Guidebook to consider changes in the implementation, execution and/or operations of the new gTLD program after its launch, and the introduction of any further evaluation guidelines not available to applicants when applications were submitted. The Predictability Framework is intended to provide guidance to the Standing IRT in how issues should be resolved, which could include recommending that the GNSO Council initiate GNSO processes provided by the ICANN Bylaws” In addition, in the deliberations section, it states: “The other noteworthy component of the Predictability Framework that bears mentioning is the potential establishment of a new structure - the Standing Implementation Review Team (IRT). This Standing IRT, which is something that the Working Group sees exclusively as an element of the New gTLD Program, is only to be established after the regular IRT completes its work (i.e., at the time of program launch). The high-level role of the Standing IRT is to help triage issues to determine what mechanisms should be utilized to address the issue. However, the Working Group acknowledges that if this new mechanism is to be established, a number of details will need to be agreed upon, such as: ● Composition of the Standing IRT ○ Number of members ○ Appointment of members ● Length of term of Standing IRT members ● Role of the Standing IRT member (representative vs independent judgement) ● Conflicts of interest procedures ● Confidentiality obligations ● ICANN Staff role and level of participation ….. So based on the fact that we separately discuss the CPIF and the Standing IRT, coupled with the fact that we sought comment on the Standing IRT membership, length of term, etc., we believe that it should have been clear that we were talking about the Standing IRT as separate and in addition to the normal PDP IRT. If that was not as clear as it could have been, assuming we adopt this Framework, we can make it much more clear. It would also help a lot if you could explain very simply what you think is “outside the jurisdiction” of the Working Group: 1. Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend to GNSO Council that an IRT be constituted? [Jeff] I suppose we can recommend anything we want on this subject, but the GNSO Council would not be bound to follow it. 2. Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend IRT involvement with the revised AGB before it is published? (I think most WG participants would be expecting this involvement.) [Jeff] I agree that while most of the community would assume that an IRT would be involved in some aspects of the revisions to the AGB, it is outside our scope to make specific recommendations on what a PDP IRT does or does not do; But this is certainly an issue to remind the GNSO Councilors on if you believe it is an issue. 3. . Is it supposedly outside our jurisdiction to recommend that the IRT be tasked with helping determine which “change requests” should be subject to public comment? (In that case, we might have to consider the issue of which change requests should require public comment in the Working Group itself. Here, the IRT solution seems preferable given our timeline.) [Jeff} I believe the way you have worded the question, yes that would be outside of our jurisdiction. However, we can achieve similar results by making a recommendation that certain change requests should be subject to public comment including….{List the ones we know of now}, and then state that “additional changes that should go out for public comment may be agreed upon during the implementation process.” Unfortunately, these questions become necessary since they are basic procedural issues underlying the assumptions made in all of our WG recommendations. We all need to be on the same page as to how “Implementation Guidance” will be used and whether or not there will be “checks and balances” that normally operate within a system where staff is consulting with a broadly representative IRT prior to launch and during the drafting of the revised AGB. Anne From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:50 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ All, Lets please keep the tone civil on these discussions and not assume that there will be malice on any side. I think we should expect that everyone will have good intentions in deciding what needs to be done. All of that said, Steve is correct. The wording I used was intention to convey that the Council in theory could elect not to constitute an IRT, but I think as past experience has shown (and even for the ePDP), the Council does tend to constitute IRTs and I can’t imagine this circumstance would be any different. But that is not a decision for this Working Group. I do agree with Rubens on the point that we may want to come up with another name for what we are now calling the “Standing IRT Panel” because it can easily get confused with the PDP IRT. Standing Operation Review Panel (SORP) doesn’t sound quite right though not just because of the funny sounding Acronym, but also because it may be looking at non-operational things. Perhaps something with Advisory in it. I first thought of TLD Advisory Review Team, but TART is much worse 😊 Perhaps TLD Advisory Panel (TAP)? Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com/> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 11:12 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Our Policy Work and a subsequent PDP Implementation Review Team Em 28 de mar de 2019, à(s) 20:39:000, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> escreveu: I think maybe that if I am a registry or registrar Council member, I just vote “NO IRT” in the Implementation Phase cause that might slow things down. (let’s get this next round going!) Isn't that awful when Council members vote based only thinking of their constituencies instead of the greater good ? Guess what, this happened a few weeks ago. And it wasn't done by CPH councillors. How is it that our Charter permits numerous recommendations for “Implementation Guidance” and permits a recommendation for a standing IRT after launch, but somehow prohibits a recommendation for an IRT during the Implementation Phase? I believe Steve already covered this. Rubens ________________________________ 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.