14,952
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + Line 76:
Line 77: − + − +
no edit summary
====The ALAC====
====The ALAC====
The [[ALAC]] expressed concerns about the annual cycles proposed in Option 2 of [[Operational Design Assessment]] for the next round of new TLDs; the enforceability of registry [[Public Interest Commitments|voluntary commitments]]; the nature and scope of applicant support; and the resourcing and marketing for the Applicant Support Program; and potential gaming of auctions and community objections.<ref>ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pgs15</ref>
The [[ALAC]] expressed concerns about the annual cycles proposed in Option 2 of [[Operational Design Assessment]] for the next round of new TLDs; the enforceability of registry [[Public Interest Commitments|voluntary commitments]]; the nature and scope of applicant support; and the resourcing and marketing for the Applicant Support Program; and potential gaming of auctions and community objections.<ref>ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pgs15</ref>
At-Large also introduced an initial framework to its members that will be used to identify New gTLDs SubPro recommendations to consider as prerequisites ahead of opening the next round of gTLDs.
====The GAC====
====The GAC====
The [[GAC]] had concerns over [[Registry]] [[Public Interest Commitments|voluntary commitments]], Applicant Support, GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warnings, community applications, and auctions.
The [[GAC]] had concerns over [[Registry]] [[Public Interest Commitments|voluntary commitments]], Applicant Support, GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warnings, community applications, and auctions.
#What criteria should determine when a policy discussion is to be sent to ICANN org vs the ICANN community?
#What criteria should determine when a policy discussion is to be sent to ICANN org vs the ICANN community?
#Could changes to the policy development process decrease the burden on the org during an Operational Design Phase?
#Could changes to the policy development process decrease the burden on the org during an Operational Design Phase?
# When should outside expertise be brought in (such as system scoping)?
#When should outside expertise be brought in (such as system scoping)?
# What would have been improved through additional community input without adding to the overall timing?
#What would have been improved through additional community input without adding to the overall timing?
====IRT Process Improvements====
====IRT Process Improvements====
The ICANN Board asked the [[CPH]] about concrete steps for improving the [[Implementation Review Team]] process. Complexity is often a result of [[PDP]] scoping. The [[RySG]] responded that they plan to: more narrowly tailor their PDPs with a more clearly defined charter, have the early involvement of the ICANN Board and ICANN organization liaisons, include observations from the [[ODA]] during the PDP, and break up the IRT. The [[RrSG]] responded that it would be helpful to have a more regular cadence and detailed agendas for IRT work sessions, include default language for IRT work from the PDP, and escalate issues to the GNSO Council or ICANN Board.<ref>ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pgs9</ref>
The ICANN Board asked the [[CPH]] about concrete steps for improving the [[Implementation Review Team]] process. Complexity is often a result of [[PDP]] scoping. The [[RySG]] responded that they plan to: more narrowly tailor their PDPs with a more clearly defined charter, have the early involvement of the ICANN Board and ICANN organization liaisons, include observations from the [[ODA]] during the PDP, and break up the IRT. The [[RrSG]] responded that it would be helpful to have a more regular cadence and detailed agendas for IRT work sessions, include default language for IRT work from the PDP, and escalate issues to the GNSO Council or ICANN Board.<ref>ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pgs9</ref>