Dear IRT Team, Lars, and Elisa, I had raised an issue on the SPIRT team about the role of the SPIRT in developing a temporary solution where a Policy Change is needed and Council pursues a policy process but a temporary solution is required to keep the current round going. In part I raised that issue because the box that went out for public comment in the Predictability Framework specified involvement of the SPIRT for this task. After public comment, the SPIRT was deleted from that policy change box consistent with p. 16 of the Sub Pro Final Report which states that the SPIRT does not develop policy but only helps determine how to classify an issue and where that issue should be addressed. However, at some point after public comment, the SPIRT got added back to that box in the Flowchart without further public comment. In the SPIRT Charter draft, we have finalized some language which Elaine Pruis cited in her correspondence with Jeff Neuman on this topic. ( I believe the whole IRT team was copied on that correspondence.) I believe the language Elaine cited was taken from the definition of "Policy Change". It specifies that the role of the SPIRT in developing a temporary policy solution to apply to an existing round is one of *consultation *with Council. Accordingly, Council may choose a different tool for the actual development of a temporary solution to keep a round going where it has identified that a Policy Change is needed for the next round, but will in fact *consult* with the SPIRT regarding such temporary solution. So here is the language we finalized for the SPIRT Charter for approval at the August 8 Council meeting: If the GNSO Council determines that the proposed change cannot be implemented in alignment with existing policy recommendations and/or an alternative change cannot be found without requiring change to the existing policies (or development of new policies), the ICANN 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. *We believe this language to be consistent with the Predictability Framework so LARS and ELISA, please confirm by reply all.* (We do recognize that if there is further public comment on the Predictability Framework when the entire AGB is once again published for comment, the SPIRT team may need to reconvene.) Many thanks to Elaine for engaging in the dialogue at the IRT level. Hopefully this meets her concerns, but if not, then there should be further discussion in the IRT as soon as possible. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com