Dear IRT,

I hope you are well. You should have received an email invite and calendar placeholder for our next meeting 9 April @ 12:00 UTC - please update your calendars with the latest invite issued by Renate, as it contains the necessary ZOOM links.

The purpose of the meeting will be to address implementation options for pre-determination use of the EPDP Arbitral Process, in light of IGO objections to ICANN org’s most recent draft updates, which we shared prior to ICANN85.

Given our urgent timescale to finalize our draft policy updates, staff wish to remind the IRT of the need to work quickly to allow the implementation process to progress. To help with this task, please see Google Drive links to 3 documents for your deliberation prior to the next meeting (also attached as Word documents):

• A compilation of IGO correspondence, explaining their stance on the GNSO Resolution and understanding of how the EPDP Arbitral Process should be implemented: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10O4i_omwuLQxZr8JVZf-qccXUa3wk8C_whWbWoDyq7U/edit?tab=t.0

• A short options paper outlining the implementation pathways currently under consideration by ICANN, drafted by staff for the IRTs deliberation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWMosNH3O8zLAoXhzOXc_lMzz7PM6j4ioRVyunCiBCI/edit?tab=t.0

• Additional drafted language to the Policy Guidance Document - this version (minus current suggested text) was circulated in December. As no comments were received at that time, I accepted all previous suggestions to show the language relevant to the 9 April discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11VUA3UCptKKRXDNvXXf6uX8mT1vdZE-bRarlWIDTiA0/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.3cycbzm21d7v

Please make sure to read these documents carefully. Given the complexity of the implementation issues we are dealing with, and to inform future discussions, staff believe it is vital that all inputs from IRT members (and the IRT collectively) are gathered for the record. As such, if you cannot attend the next call, or would rather not speak during the meeting, we ask that you instead provide written input in advance on the IRT mailing list. 

For absolute clarity, staff have indicated current thinking on the implementation options in the attached paper. In the absence of a clear IRT consensus on an alternative, ICANN org will proceed on that basis. Should the IRT disagree with this approach, staff will request that the GNSO Council Liaison return to the Council for more guidance.

Public Comment Question

During our previous meeting and public session at ICANN85, the IRT discussed an IRT member’s proposal that public comment on the implementation products was unnecessary given previous public comment proceedings on the PDP and EPDP Final Reports.  While staff recommended a public comment should take place, we asked IRT members to socialize the idea with their respective constituency groups and report back on their initial reactions. To date we have not heard any feedback on this issue, other than that the NCSG are strongly opposed to the idea. 

Accordingly, staff will begin preparations to open the public comment proceeding as soon as agreement is reached on policy language. We can talk about this as needed during our next meeting but staff, while appreciating the attempt to expedite our timeline, are of the opinion that public comment is a necessary step in our implementation path.

The IRT goal remains to complete this phase of our work as soon as possible this month. This will require us to work asynchronously. We will discuss further during our meeting.

As requested, please contact me with any questions or remarks.

Best wishes, 

Peter

Peter Eakin

Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Tel: + 32 493 547 913

Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium