2020-07-09 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

Predictability Framework:

Annex - Predictability Framework

Predictability Framework: Categories of Changes to the New gTLD Program after Approval of the Applicant Guidebook

ACTION ITEM: Delete the words “take action on”.

b. Operational - Non-Minor

ACTION ITEM: Add that the SPIRT will report to the Council.

- and -

Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines
Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 1):

See new text on pages 2-3.

ACTION ITEM: Make this language consistent with the new text in b. Operational – Non-Minor: “The Framework seeks to ensure that, where appropriate, to balance the need for ICANN Org to, on the one hand, works with the community in addressing issues and makes changes to the program with the necessary community input.”

2. Possible Policy Level Changes to Existing Processes [Changes that May Have a Policy Implication]

“All recommendations are subject to the review and oversight of the GNSO Council, who maintains the discretion on whether or not to adopt the recommendations made to the Council.”

ACTION ITEM: Delete “made to the Council.”

3. Possible Policy Level New Proposals [New Proposals that May Have Policy Implication]

the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment [to screen if there is a policy implication] and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed

ACTION ITEM: Delete “to conduct an assessment”.

 SPIRT Chartering

ACTION ITEM: Create a flow chart/process chart that shows the timing of each activity.

d. Conflict of Interest:

ACTION ITEM: Add that if an issue may be tied to a member’s application that should be declared.  Consider the language from Cheryl: “Annual SOI Updates does not negate the expectations of Continuous Disclosure AT the time, and operating in an abundance of caution.”

Length of Term:

ACTION ITEM: Review the language to avoid being detailed on the length; also make sure there is consistency in terminology throughout.

Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.

2. Review the updated Predictability Framework, see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing. Also attached, please find the updated concerns/mitigation document and process flow.

RE: “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. [The framework is therefore a tool to help the community understand how an issue should be addressed as opposed to determining what the solution to the issue should be; the framework is not a mechanism to develop policy.]”

The WG accepts the new text in brackets.

New Implementation Guidance -- Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 1) and Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2)

Why this is under the GNSO:

-- It is the body charged with developing policy.

-- This is a GNSO PDP so we can’t have recommendations that require other SOs/ACs to do something.  We can only recommend that this be supervised by the GNSO.

Recommendation xx (rationale 2): In the event significant issues arise that require resolution via the Predictability Framework, applicants should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw their application from the process and receive an appropriate refund.

-- “appropriate refund” – it was agreed that this was consistent with the schedule.

Deliberations and rationale for recommendations and/or implementation guidelines
Rationale for Recommendation xx (rationale 1):

See new text on pages 2-3.

ACTION ITEM: Make this language consistent with the new text in b. Operational – Non-Minor: “The Framework seeks to ensure that, where appropriate, to balance the need for ICANN Org to, on the one hand, works with the community in addressing issues and makes changes to the program with the necessary community input.”

Annex - Predictability Framework

Predictability Framework: Categories of Changes to the New gTLD Program after Approval of the Applicant Guidebook

“Only the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org may [take action on] [initiate action on] identify an issue or proposed Program change that needs to be analyzed to determine in which category it belongs. The category will assist in proposing an appropriate course of action for handling the change as outlined below.”

ACTION ITEM: Delete the words “take action on”.

b. Operational - Non-Minor

Process: [ICANN org shall use the Framework to determine if an issue falls in this category. ICANN org must inform the SPIRT of issues arising in this category and the SPIRT will have the option to collaborate with ICANN org as a solution is developed.] All non-minor changes to ICANN Org’s internal processes must be communicated to all impacted (or reasonably foreseeable impacted parties), prior to deployment of the change, [and shall be reported on subsequent to their implementation in a change log, or similar]. 

Discussion:

-- Could we say "ICANN org must inform the GNSO Council and the SPIRT of issues arising in this category and the SPIRT will have the option to collaborate with ICANN org as a solution..."
But the change log is after implementation.

-- But we may need to may need to modify some language on page 3 of the main Predictability Index text if we go this direction.  This is because - On page three of the main Predictability Framework text, we say the following, which conflicts with the language of B currently under discussion.  "The Framework seeks to allow ICANN Org to make changes to its internal processes that DO NOT HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT (emphasis mine) on applicants or other community members, change applications, or impact any of the processes and procedures set forth in the Applicant Guidebook."

-- Instead of making it ICANN Org’s obligation it should be the SPIRT obligation.

ACTION ITEM: Add that the SPIRT will report to the Council.

2. Possible Policy Level Changes [Changes that May Have a Policy Implication]

1. Description: These are potential changes to implementation that may materially differ from the original intent of the policy and could be considered creation of new policy. An example is the development of an application ordering mechanism (e.g., digital archery).  

Process: If the GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org  [take action on] [initiate action on] identify an issue that they believe to be in this category, the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment [to screen if there is a policy implication] and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed. Options could include:

“All recommendations are subject to the review and oversight of the GNSO Council, who maintains the discretion on whether or not to adopt the recommendations made to the Council.”

-- Question: What if the recommendation is made to someone else? Answer: All recommendations do go to the Council.

ACTION ITEM: Delete “made to the Council.”

3. Possible Policy Level New Proposals [New Proposals that May Have Policy Implication]

the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment [to screen if there is a policy implication] and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed

ACTION ITEM: Delete “to conduct an assessment”.

SPIRT Chartering

ACTION ITEM: Create a flow chart/process chart that shows the timing of each activity.

d. Conflict of Interest:

-- If something involves only your application that should be called out.

-- All applications would be covered by Statements of Participation.

-- There already is a requirement to keep SOIs up to date and reminders are made on every call.

ACTION ITEM: Add that if an issue may be tied to a member’s application that should be declared.  Consider the language from Cheryl: “Annual SOI Updates does not negate the expectations of Continuous Disclosure AT the time, and operating in an abundance of caution.”

Length of Term:

-- If the membership is open does there need to be a term limit?

-- May not need to get into the detail of the length of term.

ACTION ITEM: Review the language to avoid being detailed on the length; also make sure there is consistency in terminology throughout.