Jeff and colleagues
Good afternoon and thank you so much for the below (especially as you are on your vacation).
I am also grateful for Anne for her challenging mails and arguments.
As I noted in earlier mail to Anne, I am content with the approach we took in the SPIRT. I do not see this collaborative role of SPIRT, alongside the GNSO Council, the ICANN Org and the Board as undermining ICANN policy making processes. Why would the GNSO Council allow this?
Best
Nigel
From: SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 4:42 PM
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Cc: greenberg.alan@gmail.com; council@gnso.icann.org; gnso-spirt-dt@icann.org; compsoftnet@gmail.com; subpro-irt@icann.org; nitin@data.in
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] [council] Re: SPIRT Presentation to Council
Anne,
I think you are mischaracterizing my view. If the language said that the SPIRT, ICANN Org and the Board collaborate on a solution, your view would make sense. But it does not. It says clearly that the Council “in consultation with the SPIRT”, ICANN Board and ICANN Org.
If the Council does not want the SPIRT involved, it can say so, since it is the SPIRT’s supervisor. The Council is still responsible. All I am saying is that there is no harm with the Council “consulting” with the SPIRT. The Council is not delegating any policy making authority to the SPIRT.
And it is precisely because members of the SPIRT will likely be impacted, and be the experts, that they should be involved by default (since they are living it).
By requiring authorization for an “emergency issue” by the Council, your solution (i) ignores the fact that it is an emergency/extraordinary situation, (ii) provides an unnecessary bureaucratic procedural step to just involve those that are impacted, and (iii) will not address the needs of the program (which is to make sure it moves forwards without interruption).
Again I want to stress:
- The SPIRT alone is NOT developing any policy. It is consulting with the GNSO Council and ICANN Org, and the ICANN Board on a potential temporary solution.
- The SPIRT is not necessarily involved in the long term policy development process for the permanent solution (unless the GNSO Council authorizes them to be involved in that policy development process).
- We have to have a way to resolve extraordinary issues that pose a “risk to the program”. The SPIRT was created as an “advisory type” body for precisely this type of thing (to consult with the GNSO to help define a temporary solution).
Framed in this matter, I would like to hear from others. It seemed like the SPIRT Drafting Team (which includes GAC members, ALAC members, and GNSO members) were comfortable with this. Again I dont know how you framed the issue with the IRT in the last call, and I am on vacation ….. at least trying to be.
I would ask to have this discussion with the IRT when I am able to be on the call.
Sincerely,
Jeff
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 11:28:06 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Cc: Pruis, Elaine <epruis@verisign.com>; compsoftnet@gmail.com <compsoftnet@gmail.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>; greenberg.alan@gmail.com <greenberg.alan@gmail.com>; gnso-spirt-dt@icann.org <gnso-spirt-dt@icann.org>; nitin@data.in <nitin@data.in>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] [council] Re: SPIRT Presentation to Council
Thanks Jeff,
You may recall that there was public comment on the Predictability Framework stating that
" The language should be amended to make it
clear that the role of the SPIRT is not to
define a solution, but instead should
help determine where an issue needs to
be resolved."
The IRT staff indicated that this comment was accepted and addressed. However, your view of the role of the SPIRT being involved in developing a temporary solution with respect to a policy matter is not consistent with having addressed that public comment. Both the public comment and page 16 of the Final Report state clearly that the SPIRT should not be developing solutions where the fix that is required involves an upcoming need for a policy change. I'm sure you recall all the deliberations confirming that the SPIRT is not designe or authorized for solutions, but only as a pathway to help classify and determine WHERE an issue should be resolved.
You want the SPIRT to be charged in advance in every policy change case with coming up with a solution by working with Org, the Board, and Council. That's not consistent with the Final Report. I am offering a compromise where it is an option for Council to authorize the SPIRT to do that work, though some on the IRT have now expressed the opinion that not even that possibility is consistent with the Sub Pro work.
You have always insisted that the SPIRT is about a group of experts who really know what it's like to be an Applicant and that the SPIRT is not intended to be representative even though Steve Chan argued long and hard that it should be representative. I supported your view of the composition of the SPIRT because that is the way the SPIRT was designed under the Final Report. However, it was NOT designed to address policy issues and its non-representative composition makes it ill-suited to address those issues. Nevertheless, my personal point of view is that Council COULD elect to authorize the SPIRT to act in that capacity if Council chooses. (Others in the community may disagree.) Council could also, upon learning of a need for an urgent solution, choose to form a small team with community involvement and representation to develop a solution in the form of a Supplemental Recommendation to address a pressing need that involves policy.
Pre-authorization of the SPIRT to address a solution to a policy change issue is inconsistent with the Final Report (p.16) and inconsistent with the public comment. In this respect, both the SPIRT Charter and the Predictability Framework need to be modified.
Anne
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 6:41 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Elaine,
I apologize for missing yesterday’s meeting as I am on vacation with my extended family for the week. However, I have been in the discussions about this issue with SPIRT charter drafting team.
With the caveat that I was not on the IRT call, and have not listened to the recording yet, so I am not sure how the issue was framed. But I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to Section 3 of the Framework which precedes the Change Execution section that Anne has been commenting on. Section 3 describes the context for the types of changes. More specifically, the types of changes we are talking about fit into the last category of changes, namely,
- A policy change is a change during the ongoing round of the program that, if implemented, would be inconsistent with existing policy recommendations. Therefore, policy changes for ongoing rounds would only occur in extraordinary circumstances where the continuation of the program is at risk if the change were not executed. If a policy change is necessary the Board, ICANN org, and the GNSO Council in consultation with the SPIRT, will identify an appropriate solution to secure the continuation of the program as well as an appropriate process to implement it. In this context, any collaboration that may take place between the Council and SPIRT, is outside this framework and a matter for the SPIRT Charter.
Unfortunately flow charts have a habit of abbreviating written descriptions. Re-Reading the chart in the context of Section 3 means the following:
- A policy change for a current round would only occur in extraordinary circumstances.
- ICANN would have to demonstrate that the “program is at risk if the change were not executed.”
- If a change is necessary the Board, ICANN, and the GNSO Council in consultation with the SPIRT will identify the appropriate solution to “secure the continuation of the program as well as an appropriate process to implement it.”
Also, keep in mind that (a) The SPIRT is an open group that anyone can join (albeit at certain time intervals), (b) The SPIRT is subject to Oversight by the GNSO Council, (c) The SPIRT is advisory in nature, and (d) the SPIRT is supposed to contain “experts” in issues involving new gTLDs.
Whereas Anne believes that the SPIRT should only be involved if the Council specifically authorizes it to be involved, why can it not be that the SPIRT is involved unless the Council specifically says it should not be involved? I, for one, propose the later interpretation because the GNSO Council takes several months to authorize anything. And, since this part of the Framework only gets triggered in “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE CONTINUATION OF THE PROGRAM IS AT RISK” and the SPIRT is comprised of the experts, I would prefer the SPIRT having some role by default as opposed to Anne’s interpretation of having no role unless specifically authorized.
In the last round, ICANN made these decisions up on the fly by having all issues go to the ICANN Board. Yes, there was often a public comment period, but very few comments resulted in any changes, and the process could hardly be called collaborative. Decisions came from on high and we were all forced to deal with them. Here, there is a collaboration that involved the Board, Org, the Council and the SPIRT for a “temporary solution” to ensure continuation of the ongoing round which is “at risk”. A more permanent solution for subsequent rounds can only be developed through the normal Policy Development channels.
But that is just my view.