The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/y7gxlnbf
- Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest
- Discussion of Final Report Topics:
- 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing, start at page 10
- Review "Can't Live With" comments on packages 1-3, time permitting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing
Apologies: Susan Payne, Katrin Ohlmer, Maxim Alzoba
Notes/ Action Items
- Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.
2.2.2 Predictability:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing, start at page 10
Process Flow Chart (see attached)
-- Top swim lane is the SPIRT.
-- Three groups are: ICANN Board, ICANN Org, GNSO Council.
-- Type A, B, C, D, and E – correspond to the chart in the Annex on page 8:
Type of change
A - Operational - minor
B - Operational - non-minor
C - Operational - new process [or significant change to internal process]
It is a SPIRT task to recommend when an otherwise operational change has a possible policy implication
D - Possible policy level changes
E - Possible policy level new proposals
Notes on the Chart:
-- SPIRT: Any requests from SO/AC/SG/Cs have to come through ICANN Board, ICANN Org, or GNSO Council.
-- GNSO Council: Issues of type A and B are addressed by ICANN Org; issues C, D, and E must be referred to the SPIRT.
-- GNSO Council could refrain from forwarding and issue to the SPIRT.
-- GNSO Council could 1) agree with the SPIRT outcome; 2) seek to resolve issues with the SPIRT; 3) resolve the issue using available resources.
-- “GNSO” in the pink diamond in the GNSO Council swim lane means the “GNSO Council”.
-- Add a key at the bottom to indicate what are the different types.
From the recommendations:
“The Predictability Framework is principally: A framework for analyzing the type/scope/context of an issue and if already known, the proposed or required Program change, to assist in determining the impact of the change and the process/mechanism that should be followed to address the issue.”
Composition of the SPIRT:
First bullet: “The SPIRT should at a minimum, [for the first 2 years] [for the first 5 years] include at least one participant from the original PDP WG and IRT who can provide insight into the original reasoning behind consensus policy recommendations and implementation decisions.”
-- Don’t make it prescriptive since it may not be possible, which could hold up the establishment of the SPIRT.
-- We could just leave in the minimum requirement, but not include the text in brackets/not specify the term.
-- Composition depends on what issues the SPIRT gets and we also need to determine who runs the SPIRT. If it is deciding on policy then staff shouldn’t run it.
-- If it’s clearly policy it is something that the GNSO Council would handle through its existing mechanisms.
-- But we are saying that not everything is black and white so the GNSO Council may want a group of experts to pull out issues that are policy.
-- We are not saying that the GNSO Council should make policy.
-- Consider a change where if the SPIRT considers that something is policy it sends it back to the body that sent it to them, so that the ICANN Board or GNSO Council can decide what to do next.
-- The issue with that is the SPIRT is not supposed to make any decisions.
-- Look at why we thought we needed a framework in the first place – to avoid the problem in 2012 of staff making fundamental decisions. The SPIRT is an objective impartial kind of circuit breaker.
-- The intent is that if something is policy it goes to the GNSO Council, but it’s not clear from the flow chart who makes the determination. It needs to be fast track so it’s not holding up the applicants.
-- Afraid that what we are seeing here is going to be a long process.
Role of the SPIRT member (representative vs independent judgement)
- [For the purpose of assessing level of consensus, where there is a difference between the view of the individual member and the known position of the group that individual represents, the SPIRT member is expected to represent the known position of the group.]
- [The SPIRIT presumes that members are presenting the positions of their group.]
-- If you have a technical expert on the group they wouldn’t be a voting representative.
-- IRTs generally are open and don’t have a representative structure, but it is a guideline that the IRT should be as representative as possible.
-- IRTs follow the consensus decision-making process that is in the GNSO Operating Procedures.
-- We originally thought the SPIRT would be a standing IRT, but then we changed. But maybe we don’t need this section.
-- Not sure there is a difference between the two bullets.
-- This just seems like we are setting up a miniature GNSO Council.
-- This section is here because if you have certain numbers from different groups you want to know how they are represented.
-- If we drop section 5 then you could say this is an open structure or if you have a representative structure you could still have members operate independently.
-- You could have members representing their different groups but still acting in their independent capacity.
-- So we are saying that the group should be diverse but not represent their groups in a formal representative capacity.
-- Sounds like the conversation we had about the composition of the CSC and we looked at the scope first.
-- Should say that the group should have a diversity of membership coming from different stakeholders but are members acting in their individual capacity.
-- There should be representatives of applicants on the SPIRT since they would be most affected.
-- Reference the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework, which says IRTs should be representative.
-- We are saying it is representative but that members can act in their individual capacity.
-- Thought this was supposed to be a small nimble group, but if you open it to everybody then it isn’t.
-- Once we determine the scope we can get to the optimal number.
Conflicts of interest procedures
-- Don’t we need a recusal mechanism?
-- We went away from that concept because if the people with the most expertise have to recuse then you won’t get effective discussions.
-- Everyone has an interest and so long as those interests are known in a Statement of Participation then you don’t need a recusal mechanism.
-- Also, at the end of the day it is the Council that will adopt or not and there is the opportunity to abstain.
-- There needs to be transparency and regular disclosure.
-- Eliminate the comment on how the chair counts.