icannwiki

Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
VisualWikitext
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
Jessica (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
14,952 edits
No edit summary
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


ICANN stated the intention to introduce new application rounds of gTLDs on an ongoing basis after the first round.<ref name="agb" /> The AGB explains that the timing of future application rounds would be based on the “experience gained and changes required” after the completion of the first round.<ref name="agb" /> After the application period closed, the GNSO created a Discussion Group (DG) to evaluate the first round of applications and use experiences to identify potential areas for policy development for subsequent rounds.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds], Archived Wiki, ICANN.org</ref> The DG submitted its Final Issue Report in December 2015<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures], December 4, 2015 (PDF)</ref> After review, the GNSO Council initiated the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group in January 2016.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Home New GTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Workspace]</ref>
ICANN stated the intention to introduce new application rounds of gTLDs on an ongoing basis after the first round.<ref name="agb" /> The AGB explains that the timing of future application rounds would be based on the “experience gained and changes required” after the completion of the first round.<ref name="agb" /> After the application period closed, the GNSO created a Discussion Group (DG) to evaluate the first round of applications and use experiences to identify potential areas for policy development for subsequent rounds.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds], Archived Wiki, ICANN.org</ref> The DG submitted its Final Issue Report in December 2015<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures], December 4, 2015 (PDF)</ref> After review, the GNSO Council initiated the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group in January 2016.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP+Home New GTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Workspace]</ref>
During [[ICANN 76]], the [[ICANN Board]] adopted 98 recommendations contained in the [[SUBPRO|New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Final Report]], setting in motion the implementation process for the next round of [[New gTLD Program|new generic top-level domains]].<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-board-moves-to-begin-preparations-for-the-next-round-of-new-gtlds-16-03-2023-en ICANN Board Moves to Begin Preparations for the next round of nTLDs, ICANN Announcements]</ref>


{|align=right
{|align=right
Line 57: Line 59:


==Final Report and Recommendations==
==Final Report and Recommendations==
The Working Group's Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021.<ref>[https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Read-the-SubPro-PDP-Newsletter---January-2021-Edition.html?soid=1122025845763&aid=qJxZ65sQtok SubPro Newsletter], January 2021.</ref> The Council approved the Final Report and submitted its "Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration" to the ICANN Board on Febrary 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" />  
The Working Group's Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021.<ref>[https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Read-the-SubPro-PDP-Newsletter---January-2021-Edition.html?soid=1122025845763&aid=qJxZ65sQtok SubPro Newsletter], January 2021.</ref> The Council approved the Final Report and submitted its "Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration" to the ICANN Board on February 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" />  
===Central Recommendations and Themes===
===Central Recommendations and Themes===
====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 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 />
The Predictability Framework intends to address the concerns raised in the Charter and by the ICANN Board by creating an efficient, independent mechanism to analyze and manage issues that arise in the New gTLD Program after the Applicant Guidebook is approved which may result in changes to the program and its supporting processes. The recommendations from this Working Group are intended and expected to lessen the likelihood of unaccounted for issues in the future, but this framework is a recognition that despite best efforts, some issues may be missed and circumstances may simply change over time.<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>
The Predictability Framework intends to address the concerns raised in the Charter and by the ICANN Board by creating an efficient, independent mechanism to analyze and manage issues that arise in the New gTLD Program after the Applicant Guidebook is approved which may result in changes to the program and its supporting processes. The recommendations from this Working Group are intended and expected to lessen the likelihood of unaccounted for issues in the future, but this framework is a recognition that despite best efforts, some issues may be missed and circumstances may simply change over time.<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>


Line 80: Line 82:
===Failure to Achieve Consensus===
===Failure to Achieve Consensus===
====Closed Generics====
====Closed Generics====
The Working Group was unable to come to agreement on the handling of closed (aka exclusive) generic TLDs. No such TLDs were delegated in the 2012 round, as the Working Group noted:
The Working Group was unable to come to an agreement on the handling of closed (aka exclusive) generic TLDs.
<blockquote>The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board to [allow applicants to] either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round.<br />
It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would “develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.”144 Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on “policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.”<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>


====Resolution of Contention Sets====
====Resolution of Contention Sets====
Line 131: Line 131:
| 9 - Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments
| 9 - Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments
| Specification 11 PICs were implemented in 2012 during the launch of the application round; the mandatory PICs contained in Specification 11 were not actually codified in policy
| Specification 11 PICs were implemented in 2012 during the launch of the application round; the mandatory PICs contained in Specification 11 were not actually codified in policy
| Affirm and continue the mandatory PICs as implemented in 2012; allow exemptions/waivers for certain applicants (e.g. single registrant gTLDs); affirm and continue the NGPC policies for strings applicable to highly sensitive or regulated industries; maintain policy of allowing applicants to adopt Registry Voluntary Commitments (previously referred to as voluntary PICs)
| Affirm and continue the mandatory PICs as implemented in 2012; allow exemptions/waivers for certain applicants (e.g. single registrant gTLDs); affirm and continue the NGPC policies for strings applicable to highly sensitive or regulated industries; maintain the policy of allowing applicants to adopt Registry Voluntary Commitments (previously referred to as voluntary PICs)
|-
|-
| 10 - Applicant Freedom of Expression
| 10 - Applicant Freedom of Expression
Line 142: Line 142:
|-
|-
| 12 - Applicant Guidebook
| 12 - Applicant Guidebook
| Applicant Guidebook was the bible for applicants and decision makers
| Applicant Guidebook was the bible for applicants and decision-makers
| Affirm and continue the use of the AGB; provide AGB in all six UN languages; publish final version in English at least 4 months prior to opening of an application round
| Affirm and continue the use of the AGB; provide AGB in all six UN languages; publish the final version in English at least 4 months prior to the opening of an application round
|-
|-
| 13 - Communications
| 13 - Communications
Line 158: Line 158:
|-
|-
| 16 - Applications Submission Period
| 16 - Applications Submission Period
| 3 month application window
| 3-month application window
| Recommend an application period of no less than 12 weeks and no more than 15 weeks
| Recommend an application period of no less than 12 weeks and no more than 15 weeks
|-
|-
Line 165: Line 165:
| Recommend the continuation and expansion of fee reduction offerings; improve outreach, awareness-raising, application evaluation; and program evaluation elements; create a separate Implementation Team for Applicant Support issues and recommendations
| Recommend the continuation and expansion of fee reduction offerings; improve outreach, awareness-raising, application evaluation; and program evaluation elements; create a separate Implementation Team for Applicant Support issues and recommendations
|-
|-
| 18 - Terms & Conditons
| 18 - Terms & Conditions
| 2012 Terms & Conditions
| 2012 Terms & Conditions
| Revise Section 3 of the 2012 Terms & Conditions to state that the rationale for rejecting an application must stem from a provision of the Applicant Guidebook; reasons that include confidential information from the applicant will not be published (or will be redacted); Include a covenant not to sue (Section 6 of the 2012 T&C) only if the appeals/challenge mechanisms recommended in Topic 32 are implemented; refund application fees in the event of substantial changes to AGB, or determination that an applied-for string creates a risk of name collisions
| Revise Section 3 of the 2012 Terms & Conditions to state that the rationale for rejecting an application must stem from a provision of the Applicant Guidebook; reasons that include confidential information from the applicant will not be published (or will be redacted); Include a covenant not to sue (Section 6 of the 2012 T&C) only if the appeals/challenge mechanisms recommended in Topic 32 are implemented; refund application fees in the event of substantial changes to AGB, or determination that an applied-for string creates a risk of name collisions
Line 190: Line 190:
|-
|-
| 24 - String Similarity Evaluations
| 24 - String Similarity Evaluations
| 2012 AGB: "'similar' means 'strings so similar that they create a probability of user confusion ifmore than one of the strings is delegated into the root zone.' Established criteria for visual similarity.
| 2012 AGB: "'similar' means 'strings so similar that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the strings is delegated into the root zone.' Established criteria for visual similarity.
| Affirm and continue the baseline standard & visual criteria from 2012; increase clarity on the evaluation of similarity of singular/plural versions of strings, which led to some unpredictability and confusion in 2012; set a deadline for string confusion objections
| Affirm and continue the baseline standard & visual criteria from 2012; increase clarity on the evaluation of similarity of singular/plural versions of strings, which led to some unpredictability and confusion in 2012; set a deadline for string confusion objections
|-
|-
Line 199: Line 199:
| 26 - Security and Stability
| 26 - Security and Stability
| Strings must not cause instability
| Strings must not cause instability
| Affirm and continue existing principles; shift focus on rate of change to monthly growth of the root zone (with implementation guidance around acceptable rates of change in a month), rather than delegated strings per year; "Emoji in domain names, at any level, must not be allowed"
| Affirm and continue existing principles; shift focus on the rate of change to monthly growth of the root zone (with implementation guidance around acceptable rates of change in a month), rather than delegated strings per year; "Emoji in domain names, at any level, must not be allowed"
|-
|-
| 27 - Applicant Reviews: Technical & Operational, Financial, and Registry Services
| 27 - Applicant Reviews: Technical & Operational, Financial, and Registry Services
Line 207: Line 207:
| 28 - Role of Application Comment
| 28 - Role of Application Comment
| 2012 round allowed for a public comment period on each evaluation, and such public comments could affect the scoring of the application
| 2012 round allowed for a public comment period on each evaluation, and such public comments could affect the scoring of the application
| Affirm and continue the practice of soliciting community comment and the possibility that comments will impact scores; be transparent and consistent in explaining the impact of comment submission, the process of accepting comments, and the opportunities for applicants to respond; ensure that commenters validate an email address before commenting, and make best efforts to verify the commenter's identity; require commenters to reveal affiliations with the applicant; Emphasize ease of use in comment submission and allow attachments to comments; allow comments on confidential portions of the application, or submissions of confidential material, and allow applicants to respond under the same shield of confidentiality
| Affirm and continue the practice of soliciting community comments and the possibility that comments will impact scores; be transparent and consistent in explaining the impact of comment submission, the process of accepting comments, and the opportunities for applicants to respond; ensure that commenters validate an email address before commenting, and make best efforts to verify the commenter's identity; require commenters to reveal affiliations with the applicant; Emphasize ease of use in comment submission and allow attachments to comments; allow comments on confidential portions of the application, or submissions of confidential material, and allow applicants to respond under the same shield of confidentiality
|-
|-
| 29 - Name Collisions
| 29 - Name Collisions
Line 227: Line 227:
| 33 - Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation
| 33 - Dispute Resolution Procedures After Delegation
| [[PICDRP]] and [[RRDRP]]
| [[PICDRP]] and [[RRDRP]]
| Affirm and continue the PICDRP and RRDRP; enhance, clarify, and better define guidance on the scope and uses of those appeal processes; Working Group declined to issue recommendation on the [[Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure]], as that was being reviewed by the [[PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs]]
| Affirm and continue the PICDRP and RRDRP; enhance, clarify, and better define guidance on the scope and uses of those appeal processes; Working Group declined to issue a recommendation on the [[Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure]], as that was being reviewed by the [[PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs]]
|-
|-
| 34 - Community Applications
| 34 - Community Applications
Line 242: Line 242:
|-
|-
| 37 - Registrar Non-Discrimination & Registry/Registrar Standardization
| 37 - Registrar Non-Discrimination & Registry/Registrar Standardization
| Registries must use ICANN accredited registrars, and may not discriminte between them
| Registries must use ICANN accredited registrars, and may not discriminate between them
| Affirm with modifications permitting a registry to request an exemption, subject to public comment
| Affirm with modifications permitting a registry to request an exemption, subject to public comment
|-
|-
Line 273: Line 273:


==Operational Design Phase==
==Operational Design Phase==
ICANN Org's work on the SUBPRO ODP is ongoing. ICANN has established a [https://www.icann.org/subpro-odp dashboard] for announcements, documents, and events related to the ODP.<ref name="odpdash">[https://www.icann.org/subpro-odp ICANN.org - SUBPRO ODP]</ref>
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 September 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===
Line 317: Line 317:
       at:09/12/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Sept. 12 - Final Draft of ODA complete - public comments"
       at:09/12/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Sept. 12 - Final Draft of ODA complete - public comments"
       at:09/19/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Sept. 19 - Present ODA at ICANN 75"
       at:09/19/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Sept. 19 - Present ODA at ICANN 75"
       at:10/31/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Oct. 31 - Submit ODA to Board"
       at:10/31/2022 shift:(8,-5) text:"Dec. 12 - Submit ODA to Board"
        
        
</timeline>
</timeline>
Line 340: Line 340:


===Community Status Update #2===
===Community Status Update #2===
ICANN or released its second community update in May 2022.<ref name="csu2">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/community-status-update-new-gtld-subpro-odp-16may22-en.pdf SUBPRO ODP - Community Status Update], May 16, 2022</ref> The update included a compilation of all policy question sets submitted to the GNSO Council to help clarify issue areas. In addition, the update compiled all of the published assumptions from the ODP team regarding strategic needs and processes.<ref name="csu2" />
ICANN or released its second community update in May 2022.<ref name="csu2">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/community-status-update-new-gtld-subpro-odp-16may22-en.pdf SUBPRO ODP - Community Status Update], May 16, 2022</ref> The update included a compilation of all policy question sets submitted to the GNSO Council to help clarify issue areas. In addition, the update compiled all of the published assumptions from the ODP team regarding strategic needs and processes.<ref name="csu2" /> Shortly thereafter, the ODP team released another iteration of the team's assumptions document.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/assumptions-subsequent-procedures-odp-25may22-en.pdf ICANN.org Archive - Assumptions re: Subsequent Procedures ODP], May 25, 2022 (PDF)</ref>
 
Following the release of the status update, [[Karen Lentz]] posted a blog regarding operational readiness for the next round of applications.<ref name="522blog">[https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/icann-subpro-odp-update-focusing-on-the-operational-readiness-work-track-26-05-2022-en ICANN.org Blog - SUBPRO Update - Focusing on the Operational Readiness Work Track], May 26, 2022</ref> The post described the creation of a roadmap based on applicant experience and interactions:
<blockquote>The Operational Readiness work track includes development of a high-level design of the operational aspects of the next round. This operational blueprint will include a description of the applicant's experience, from prior to the opening of the application window through contracting and delegation (entering the string into the root zone and making it visible on the Internet).<ref name="522blog" /></blockquote>


===ICANN 74===
===ICANN 74===
Line 346: Line 349:


During the meeting, the ODP team hosted a session to engage stakeholders and receive feedback on specific work areas in progress.<ref name="74odp">[https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/Q5k7NyhhFhLwmbkgY ICANN 74 Archive - Plenary Session: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - Working Together], May 13, 2022</ref>
During the meeting, the ODP team hosted a session to engage stakeholders and receive feedback on specific work areas in progress.<ref name="74odp">[https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/Q5k7NyhhFhLwmbkgY ICANN 74 Archive - Plenary Session: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - Working Together], May 13, 2022</ref>
==ODA==
ICANN spent $6.8 million on the ODP to generate and deliver the Operational Design Assessment in mid-December 2022. This amount fell under the low-end of the $7 million to $9 million the ICANN board approved for its budget. Fifteen full-time equivalents, mostly [[:Category:ICANN staff|ICANN Staff]], spent over 27,000 hours in making the ODA report.<ref>[https://domainincite.com/28594-new-gtlds-report-came-in-under-budget nTLD ODA Report Under Budget, Domain Incite]</ref>
===Key Take-Aways from the ODA ===
ICANN Org
*determined that most of the SubPro Final Report outputs<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf SubPro ODA, Executive Summary]</ref>
#  are implementable in the New gTLD Program
# have mechanisms to support diversity, predictability, and innovation and
# refer to Global Public Interest (GPI) pilot framework terms
*analyzed the potential timeline, costs, resource requirements, systems needs, and risks of implementing all 300+ SubPro Final Report outputs.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf SubPro ODA, Executive Summary] </ref>
*proposed a Business Process Design (Appendix 6) outlining the key components of how the next round could be implemented, from foundational concepts to post-contracting, with the aim of supporting the Implementation Review Team (IRT) and found that the overall implementation cost for the next round of the New TLD Program would be significantly higher than the 2012 round.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf SubPro ODA, Executive Summary] </ref>
====Application Period Options====
*presented two options for the application process: a single application submission period per round (the assumed route) or cyclical application submission periods (the alternative; Appendix 19).
::'''Option 1''' may take at least five years from the Board directing ICANN org to begin implementation to the opening of the application submission window, cost approximately USD $457 million, involve 18 system services and 125 full-time equivalents, and incur the risk of material financial losses if demand is low.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf SubPro ODA, Executive Summary], Pgs 12-14</ref>
::'''Option 2''' would take 18 months to begin implementing, split the immediate next round into four annual application submission periods, create predictability for the New TLD Program,  moderate the influx of applications in the first cycle, rely on a processing capacity limit of 450 applications per cycle, offer flexibility to potential applicants, and may be beneficial to new entrants who may need to invest more time and resources. However, this option contains the risks of
::#limited space leading to competition,
::#giving an advantage to applicants already engaged in the current DNS ecosystem, and
::#being less efficient than the processing of portfolio applications available with option 1.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/subpro-oda-12dec22-en.pdf SubPro ODA, Executive Summary], Pg 17</ref>
===Reactions to the ODA===
On January 20, 2023, the GNSO Council provided feedback to the ICANN Board about the SubPro ODA. The Council encouraged the ICANN Board to adopt the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report ASAP. In particular, the Small Team:
*explained that it couldn’t differentiate Options 1 and 2 and their impacts on the overall new gTLD program;
*believed that the bulk of the applications would come in the first cycle, regardless of what ICANN org internally designs;
*suggested that the next round should not be more complex or time and resource intensive than is necessary;
*requested that the org use existing know-how and lessons learned (and the general approach of outsourcing or buying in and adapting systems);
*distinguished between what is necessary to support the program and what is a wish list; and
*felt that the design could be simplified to minimize the risks identified by using customizable existing software and platforms instead of building in-house and from scratch.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ducos-to-sinha-20jan23-en.pdf Ducos to Sinha Jan 20, 2023, Correspondence, ICANN Files]</ref>
==Implementation Planning Phase==
At [[ICANN 76]], the [[GNSO Council]] agreed to form a small team of councilors to review the pending recommendations and suggest how to address the underlying concerns. The Council SubPro Small Team completed an initial run-through of the issues chart and proposed paths forward for each pending recommendation to be presented in the Council's dialogue with the ICANN Board on May 22, 2023.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+2023-05-25 Final Proposed Agenda for 05/25/2023, GNSO Council Meetings]</ref>


==References==
==References==
Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/Policy_Development_Process_for_New_gTLD_Subsequent_Procedures"