Hi Lars

Thanks for your proposals regarding the combining of categories in the Predictability Framework.  As Council Liaisons, Anne and I discussed this (although not the specific language you have now shared) and we do not oppose in principle combining categories 4 and 5 (changes and new proposals that have policy implications), if that is what the IRT supports, since the potential options available for both categories, as set out in Annex E, are the same.  For the avoidance of doubt, however, we wanted to flag that although you are correct when you say that the only mechanisms available to develop policy, if required, for these categories would be a PDP or EPDP, there may be other mechanisms suitable for something which has policy implications but does not require policy development. Annex E does envisage that where something is determined not to rise to the level of requiring a change to existing policy or development of new policy it may still be appropriate for the issue to be referred to Council to consider whether another mechanism is suitable, such as a GIP or GGP. 

Regards

Susan

 

 

Dear IRT members,

 

In drafting the text for the Predictability framework, we would you to confirm our understanding of Annex E and our approach to implementing the categories of operational and policy issues – per our questions contained in the text below. Please note, we also uploaded the question to the IRT’s google drive (with only the comment function enabled).

 

If you cannot access the document, please contact document: nextround_policyimplementation@icann.org.

 

We are looking forward to hearing back on this issues.

Best wishes,

Lars

 

 

 

Dear IRT members, 

 

In developing the Predictability Framework we would like to propose to make the Framework as efficient and transparent as possible. As a reminder, the intent of the Framework is to ensure that there is transparency and predictability about any changes that are made to the next round of the New gTLD Program (the Program) after it is launched. To this end, we ask that you confirm our understanding of Annex E and our approach to implementing the categories of operational and policy issues.  

 

Annex E of the Final Report provides three categories of operational issues and two categories of policy issues:

1. Minor operational issue
2. Non-minor operational issue
3. New operational process or significant operational issue
4. Changes that may have a policy implication
5. New proposals that have have policy implication

 

To make the Framework more transparent and efficient, we propose (A) to combine categories 2 and 3 because regardless of whether an issue is identified as “non-minor” or a “new operational process or significant operational issue”, ICANN must consult the SPIRT and SPIRT has the option to collaborate with ICANN. 

 

We also propose (B) to combine categories 4 and 5 because in both categories the Council either determines that policy work is required or that, in fact, the issue requires an operational solution, which would move it automatically into one of the operational categories. 

A.                  Rationale for combining categories 2 and 3

 

The main procedural difference between category 1 and categories 2 and 3 is, according to Annex E, that the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT)  has the option to collaborate on solutions with ICANN org on issues that fall within categories 2 and 3.

 

The difference between categories 2 and 3 is that in category 3, the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board can ‘initiate action’.

 

It is our understanding that any issue that requires Council action is by definition a policy issue that requires a change to (or new) policy and would thus make it an issue that must fall into the ‘policy’ category.

 

The ability of the Board to act is unaffected by the Framework. 

 

Therefore, we propose to reduce the categories of operational issues to minor and non-minor, with the procedural distinction that the latter gives  SPIRT the option to collaborate with ICANN org on the solution.

2.  Regarding the operational issues:

 

We understand that the Council has only two tools to develop policies: a PDP or an EPDP. With regard to the impact on the Program, whether the GNSO amends existing policy or develops new policy, only a PDP or EPDP can achieve this. We also note in this context that the Council had previously confirmed to the ODP that policy changes can only affect subsequent rounds, never the current one. 

If the SPIRT refers an issue to the Council because it or ICANN believes that a policy change may be required, and the Council determines that no policy change is required, then ICANN org will address the issue via an operational change, in accordance with the Framework. Therefore, we propose to combine categories 4 and 5 into one category of  ‘changes that require policy development’. 

 

ICANN org believes that this approach is consistent with recommendation 2.1 that “ICANN must establish predictable, transparent, and fair processes and procedures for managing issues that arise in the New gTLD Program after the Applicant Guidebook is approved which may result in changes to the Program and its supporting processes.” ICANN org has used the predictability framework outlined in Annex E to the Final Report as its guidance in proposing this approach to implement the framework with the goal of predictability in mitigating issues.