Sure Jeff, but according to the Implementation Review Team Principles & Guidelines there are strict limits to what an IRT can do: "As provided in the PDP Manual, the IRT is convened to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy to ensure that the implementation conforms to the intent of the policy recommendations." We can't create new policy here... Best, Kathy On 4/29/2019 10:37 PM, Jeff Neuman wrote:

Thank you Kathy for this text.  The questions I will be asking the group are:

1.  Are there elements of the Predictability Model that can be used or modifications we can make to the model to handle the issues raised? 2. If we do not use the Predictability model, then what do we use?

Although we appreciate comments of opposition and need to consider them, we also need real solutions to the very real issues that have been identified by the community.  Much of the community has responded to the comments stating that the existing procedures contained in the Guidebook as well as the current GNSO processes are not sufficient to handle all of the issues (especially after the launch of the application window).  The Board has acknowledged this as well in their comments (eg., that a process is needed so that it is not the Board resolving every issue in a top-down manner).

So, please be ready to discuss solutions.

*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/>__

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2019 10:05 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG meeting - Tuesday, 30 April 2019 at 03:00 UTC

Hi All,

The meeting coming up in an hour will be discussing the Predictability Framework.  In preparation, I would like to share the full text of the NCSG comment on this matter, since I expect we will be discussing it at some length. Having the full text (not long, approx 500 words) will hopefully provide valuable background as to the nature and basis of our concerns.

Best, Kathy

---------------------

_NCSG Comment__ _

*"2.2.2 The Predictability Framework Proposal is Not Fair, Balanced, or Consistent with our Policy Development Process*

The Predictability Frame is concerning to the NCSG because it gives inordinate and

unprecedented power to the Implementation Review Team (IRT) of the Subsequent

Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group. The proposal creates a Super-IRT

not just to roll-out the details of the implementation — but to judge and rule on all issues that

arise. To quote the Initial Report, /“as part of the Predictability Framework, a Standing/

/Implementation Review Team (IRS) 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.”/

* *

*"Disproportionate representation in IRTs*

We note that IRTs are mostly small groups, disproportionately represented by registries and

registrars — those knowledgeable and concerned about the technicalities of the technical

policy we have created at ICANN. Rarely does the NCSG, for example, have the ability or

bandwidth to serve on an IRT — and such service should not be needed if the IRT remains to

be the technical implementation arm of a community-driven, community-consensus policy

development process.

*"IRT cannot be used as a tool for bypassing GNSO PDPs*

As highlighted above, such groups are often composed by members of the technical

community - or people who are expert in the technical implementation details of the field -

and lack a more proportional representation of the ICANN Community. Their job is to

execute what the Community as a whole (or a Supporting Organization such as the GNSO)

have adopted in time-consuming Policy Development Processes that often take years, and to

assess any technical barriers offered to the implementation of such policies. Unfortunately,

IRTs have already massively overreached in other areas, and engaged in policy changes and

policy interpretation. For instance, the original Rights Protection Mechanisms IRT for the

first Applicant Guidebook has been severely criticized in the current Review of All Rights

Protections Mechanisms PDP Working Group for its overreach in this area.

Once a policy hits a post-launch problem, it is not a matter for any Implementation Review

Team (IRT) to resolve, even this Super-IRT, because that would be highly unfair.

Implementation Review Teams “implement” — they absolutely don’t create new policies or

even interpretations with overwhelmingly policy-oriented interpretations. That’s simply not

their mandate, goal, or expertise

"This attempt to create this “third element,” this Predictability Framework, is and will become

a policy bypass and overreach mechanism. It is created as such to handle newly-arising issues

in the New gTLD Program — and ones, as noted above, likely to involve far-reaching or

international policy issues. it is not for the industry to resolve (or likely remove) the issue by

seeking to set it aside, or interpreting it away, under the guise of “operations and execution.”

"For all the reasons above, the *NCSG strongly rejects the proposal of a Framework and the massive expansion of the scope and breadth of the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team *. IRTs should retain their limited mandate and not be given super powers to change policies through process innovation, and especially not in the midst of new rounds of gTLDs."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 4/26/2019 8:27 PM, Steve Chan wrote:

...

Dear WG members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Tuesday, 30April 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes:

Draft Agenda:

1. Welcome/Review of the Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review of Summary Documents – (see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXK...) 1. 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures 2. 2.2.2 Predictability / 2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process 3. AOB

Note, in relation to agenda item 2, WG leadership and staff have tried to prepare summary documents for each topic that seeks to help you review some of the background material, consider a high-level summary of what we believe the WG is seeking to accomplish for the topic, a high-level summary of public comment received, and finally, a sort of catch all at the end of each section (e.g., follow-up, parking lot, next steps).

If you need a dial out or would like to send an apology for this call, please emailgnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.

Best,

Steve

*Steven Chan**
***

Policy Director, GNSO Support

**

*ICANN*

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800

Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/

http://gnso.icann.org/en/

_______________________________________________ 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://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaig...>

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus