Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Difference between revisions
Christiane (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Christiane (talk | contribs) general fixes |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
====Predictability Framework and SPIRT==== | ====Predictability Framework and SPIRT==== | ||
The report emphasizes the need for consistent, predictable outcomes for application and dispute procedures. The Working Group recommended the adoption of a Predictability Framework (contained in Annex E of the Final Report), as well as the creation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT, pronounced "spirit") to monitor, assess, and propose resolutions to situations that might impact the operation of the New gTLD Program.<ref name="subpro" /> The Predictability Framework identifies a limited number of such situations, including changes in ICANN's operations, changes to policies related to or affecting the New gTLD Program, and new policy proposals that may affect the program. Under the guidance, emergency decisions that may impact the program should be "narrowly tailored to address the emergency situation."<ref name="subpro" /> The Working Group recommended the maintenance of a change log, so that the GNSO and applicants may be kept apprised of changes to the program. In addition, the WG proposed an amendment to the refund procedure so that applicants who are adversely affected by policy changes may withdraw and receive a refund of fees. | The report emphasizes the need for consistent, predictable outcomes for application and dispute procedures. The Working Group recommended the adoption of a Predictability Framework (contained in Annex E of the Final Report), as well as the creation of a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT, pronounced "spirit") to monitor, assess, and propose resolutions to situations that might impact the operation of the New gTLD Program.<ref name="subpro" /> | ||
The Predictability Framework identifies a limited number of such situations, including changes in ICANN's operations, changes to policies related to or affecting the New gTLD Program, and new policy proposals that may affect the program. Under the guidance, emergency decisions that may impact the program should be "narrowly tailored to address the emergency situation."<ref name="subpro" /> The Working Group recommended the maintenance of a change log, so that the GNSO and applicants may be kept apprised of changes to the program. In addition, the WG proposed an amendment to the refund procedure so that applicants who are adversely affected by policy changes may withdraw and receive a refund of fees. | |||
In its rationale for these proposals, the WG noted: | In its rationale for these proposals, the WG noted: | ||
<blockquote>Applicants and other parties interested in the New gTLD Program, however, believed that there were a number of changes that were made after the commencement of the 2012 program which hindered the program’s predictability. Therefore, the Working Charter asked the Working Group to consider the question, “How can changes to the program be introduced after launch (e.g., digital archery/prioritization issues, name collision, registry agreement changes, public interest commitments (PICs), etc.) be avoided?” In addition, the ICANN Board commented that “The Board is concerned about unanticipated issues that might arise and what mechanism should be used in such cases.”<br /> | <blockquote>Applicants and other parties interested in the New gTLD Program, however, believed that there were a number of changes that were made after the commencement of the 2012 program which hindered the program’s predictability. Therefore, the Working Charter asked the Working Group to consider the question, “How can changes to the program be introduced after launch (e.g., digital archery/prioritization issues, name collision, registry agreement changes, public interest commitments (PICs), etc.) be avoided?” In addition, the ICANN Board commented that “The Board is concerned about unanticipated issues that might arise and what mechanism should be used in such cases.”<br /> | ||
| Line 240: | Line 243: | ||
==Board Actions == | ==Board Actions == | ||
* The board placed the final report on the agenda for its regular meeting on June 21, 2021.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2021-06-21-en ICANN.org Archive - Board Material: Agenda], June 21, 2021</ref> At [[ICANN 71]], when conversation touched upon SUBPRO, there was a general expectation that the board would launch an [[Operational Design Phase]] regarding the recommendations in the Final Outputs document.<ref>[https://71.schedule.icann.org/meetings/s6yQ7pydosLKtJFDM# ICANN 71 Session - GAC Discussion on Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs, Future GAC Meetings], June 15, 2021</ref><ref>[https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/content=t:attachment,f:%22I71_RTM-Tue15June2021__GAC%20Disc%20on%20Subsequent%20Rounds%20of%20New%20gTLDs%20(1%20of%202)-en.pdf ICANN 71 Transcript - GAC Discussion of Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs], June 15, 2021</ref> | * The board placed the final report on the agenda for its regular meeting on June 21, 2021.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2021-06-21-en ICANN.org Archive - Board Material: Agenda], June 21, 2021</ref> At [[ICANN 71]], when conversation touched upon SUBPRO, there was a general expectation that the board would launch an [[Operational Design Phase]] regarding the recommendations in the Final Outputs document.<ref>[https://71.schedule.icann.org/meetings/s6yQ7pydosLKtJFDM# ICANN 71 Session - GAC Discussion on Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs, Future GAC Meetings], June 15, 2021</ref><ref>[https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/content=t:attachment,f:%22I71_RTM-Tue15June2021__GAC%20Disc%20on%20Subsequent%20Rounds%20of%20New%20gTLDs%20(1%20of%202)-en.pdf ICANN 71 Transcript - GAC Discussion of Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs], June 15, 2021</ref> | ||
* On September 12, 2021, the Board directed the [[ICANN CEO]] to organize the resources required to begin work on the [[ODP]] for SubPro and advise the Board when the work of the ODP begins. The Board requested regular updates on the progress and the delivery of an Operational Design Assessment (ODA) (the output of the ODP), within | * On September 12, 2021, the Board directed the [[ICANN CEO]] to organize the resources required to begin work on the [[ODP]] for SubPro and advise the Board when the work of the ODP begins. The Board requested regular updates on the progress and the delivery of an Operational Design Assessment (ODA) (the output of the ODP), within ten months of the date of initiation. The Board also authorized [[Göran Marby|Goran Marby]] up to US$9 million to fund the ODP, and its requisite community engagement, formation and delivery of an ODA to the Board, and any additional work required to support the ICANN Board's consideration of the SubPro final report.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-odp-webinar-28sep21-en.pdf SubPro Webinar, ICANN Sept 2021]</ref> | ||
==Operational Design Phase== | ==Operational Design Phase== | ||
On December 12, 2022, [[ICANN Organization]] delivered the Operational Design Assessment (ODA), which is the final product of the Operational Design Phase ([[ODP]]) to the ICANN Board, ending a phase that began on 12 | On December 12, 2022, [[ICANN Organization]] delivered the "Operational Design Assessment (ODA)", which is the final product of the Operational Design Phase ([[ODP]]) to the ICANN Board, ending a phase that began on September 12, 2021, when the Board directed the [[ICANN CEO]] to organize the resources required to begin this process.<ref name="odpdash">[https://www.icann.org/subpro-odp ICANN.org - SUBPRO ODP]</ref> | ||
===Foundational Documents and Resources=== | ===Foundational Documents and Resources=== | ||