<div dir="auto">Hi</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If we don’t have enough time we should give some questions to NCUC to ask. Also why are we back at scripted board questions again! I thought last year we agreed being scripted doesn’t creat conversation… </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 11:19 AM Kathy Kleiman <kathy@dnrc.tech> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p>Hi John,</p>
<p>This is a fine question and a good concern, so let me throw it
back to you. <i>How much time do you want? Why don't we (NCSG)
ask for it in the question? </i><br>
</p>
<p>(Quick note that I have investigated and found that <b>3 years </b>is
a reasonable time frame for working with indigenous peoples in
North America (where I am from). That's probably too long. If 18
months is too short and 3 years is too long - what is reasonable
to request? Let's put a new timeframe on the table. <br>
</p>
<p>(If we propose a timeframe, we should try to back it up with some
research and analysis.)<br>
</p>
<p>Also, ICANN is thinking the Applicant Support Program <i><b>will
begin </b></i><i><b>after the Applicant Guidebook</b></i><i><b>
with <u>all the details of the New gTLD applications </u>published.
<br>
</b></i></p>
<p>But why? Why does the Applicant Support Program have have wait
until every last details of the Applicant Guidebook is finalized?
After that happens, after the Guidebook is done, ICANN will be
rolling out the program as fast as possible. Nothing will stop it.
<br>
</p>
<p><i><b>But why should Applicant Support Program wait until then?
</b></i><b>You (we) could, through rewording of this question,
propose that ICANN starts the Applicant Support marketing
program **now or soon.** </b>Why not? Indigenous peoples,
minority groups, Global South NGOs need the big picture ideas of
New gTLDs from ICANN now. <i>ICANN could tell them </i><i><u>now
</u></i><i>(in general) what is the New gTLD program, what is
involved in being a gTLD Registry, and what is involved
(generally) we applying for a New gTLD (technical, operational
and financial criteria). That's what these organizations need
now - as you point out below - to begin their evaluation. </i>Why
not start this marketing by ICANN NOW? <br>
</p>
<p>Then <b>Part II </b>of the Applicant Support Program could come
at 18 months, or <b>better and fairer, Two Years, before new gTLD
applications are due. </b>By this point, the follow-up and
voluminous details of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook will be
available and ICANN could follow-up with even more details and
guidance about the Applicant Support Program (including how low
they can go with the application for NGOs, tribes, indigenous
peoples, and minority groups that apply.<br>
</p>
<p>But don't we ask to start start NOW? <br>
</p>
<p>(Here's a link to the 2012 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, and
truly, we're not changing it too much going forward. <a href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb" target="_blank">https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</a>
)<br>
</p>
<p>Best, Kathy</p>
<p>Kathy Kleiman <br>
</p></div><div>
<div>On 3/1/2023 9:51 AM, John Gbadamosi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I have rephrased question 2, let us see if this is
better:
<div>NCSG is deeply invested in the topic of Applicant Support.
The SubPro ODA recommended that the applicant support program
begin 18 months before the expected opening of the application
submission period and presented two implementation options,
with option 2 requiring only 18 months. However, due to the
ongoing work of the GGP, it appears impractical to incorporate
the Applicant Support Program in time for the next round
within the aggressive timeline of option 2. While we
appreciate the organization's efforts to reduce risks and
increase efficiency through the development of option 2, it
would be pointless to proceed with the next round without a
genuinely effective applicant support program. The Board has
expressed interest in finding new ways to work on issues and
increase efficiency, but we are concerned that this desire to
move quickly could compromise the inclusive and diverse
multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2 could
serve as an example of this. We would like to know how the
Board intends to balance its desire to be agile with the need
to preserve due process, inclusiveness, and diversity in its
deliberations, including those related to SubPro ODA.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_3396415579584985508DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top-width:1px;border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(211,212,222)">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank"><img src="https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" width="46" height="29"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px;color:rgb(65,66,78)">Virus-free.<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(68,83,234)" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 3:18 PM
Digital <<a href="mailto:stephanie@digitaldiscretion.ca" target="_blank">stephanie@digitaldiscretion.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">will
work on it right now<br>
Steph<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
> On Mar 1, 2023, at 08:50, Johan Helsingius <<a href="mailto:julf.helsingius@gmail.com" target="_blank">julf.helsingius@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> [You don't often get email from <a href="mailto:julf.helsingius@gmail.com" target="_blank">julf.helsingius@gmail.com</a>.
Learn why this is important at <a href="https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification</a>
]<br>
> <br>
> Great questions! Thanks!<br>
> <br>
> Can anyone help streamline question 2? I would make an
attempt,<br>
> but I am in transit right now...<br>
> <br>
> Julf<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> On 01/03/2023 11:12, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen wrote:<br>
>> My question:<br>
>> <br>
>> 1.<br>
>> In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti
suggested that the<br>
>> Board 'anticipates making incremental decisions
leading up to the final<br>
>> decision on opening a new application window for new
gTLDs'. Can you<br>
>> elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be
expected?<br>
>> <br>
>> 2.<br>
>> Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of
NCSG. In the SubPro<br>
>> ODA, it was suggested that the applicant support
program starts 18<br>
>> months prior to the anticipated application
submission period opening.<br>
>> The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing
SubPro outputs, where<br>
>> option 2 only requires 18 months of implementation.
While the GGP<br>
>> continues its work, it seems impossible to
incorporate the Applicant<br>
>> Support Program in time for the next round in the
aggressive timeline of<br>
>> Option 2. While we appreciate the org's effort in
mitigating risks and<br>
>> enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, the next
round would be<br>
>> meaningless if we open it without a meaningful and
genuinely effective<br>
>> applicant support program. We have received questions
from the Board<br>
>> about how to be agile and come up with new ways of
working on issues to<br>
>> increase efficiency,. However, we fear this desire to
move things<br>
>> forward can damage the inclusive, diverse
multistakeholder model that<br>
>> defines ICANN. And Option 2 could be the exact
example. How does the<br>
>> Board plan to balance the desire to be agile without
compromising the<br>
>> due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of the
multistakeholder model<br>
>> in its deliberations, including SubPro ODA?<br>
>> <br>
>> The second question is a bit wordy and I'm afraid not
as clear.<br>
>> Appreciate if anyone would help editing/rephrasing to
make it clearer!<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> Best,<br>
>> Manju<br>
>> <br>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:59 PM Johan Helsingius <<a href="mailto:julf@julf.com" target="_blank">julf@julf.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:julf@julf.com" target="_blank">julf@julf.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>> Just as a reminder, here are the questions from
our last<br>
>> session with the board:<br>
>> <br>
>> PDPs Effectiveness and Volunteer fatigue<br>
>> <br>
>> NCSG would like to discuss Board Approval,
implementation by<br>
>> ICANN<br>
>> org and delays of several PDPs - something we have
already discussed<br>
>> with you in previous occasions. If we look at
processes such as the<br>
>> EPDP<br>
>> related ones I think we can find a good example
due<br>
>> <br>
>> to the fact that even despite the fact that
the board didn't yet<br>
>> approve phase 2 recommendation, which were
submitted in 2020, there is<br>
>> talk about the design paper of SSAD light. And in
the past years, I<br>
>> guess we started gathering more examples of where
the development<br>
>> process drags on for far too long and the
implementation becomes the<br>
>> place de facto to redo policy recommendations. So
NCSG would like to<br>
>> request the board for comments about the current
speed or even how do<br>
>> you plan to work together with GNSO and its groups
on possible<br>
>> improvements to the PDPs timeline and so on.<br>
>> <br>
>> What efforts are channeled to keep the
people in the community<br>
>> from volunteer fatigue?<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> Whois Disclosure System<br>
>> <br>
>> The recently published Whois Disclosure
System design paper<br>
>> mentioned a risk that the system might not provide
actionable data for<br>
>> use to answer questions raised by the SSAD ODA and
this makes us a<br>
>> little concerned about the EPDP recommendations.
The direction this<br>
>> work<br>
>> is going seems to point towards the intention to
throw away the EPDP<br>
>> recommendations related to SSAD. I'd like to know
what the board thinks<br>
>> about this concern.<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> ICANN Leadership positions<br>
>> <br>
>> What is the Board’s take on the phenomenon
of ICANN recycling<br>
>> veterans for leadership positions. Does the Board
think it’s beneficial<br>
>> for the community to have the usual suspects
rotating between<br>
>> leadership<br>
>> roles of different stakeholder groups? How do we
fix this if we agree<br>
>> this is a problem? How does the Board imagine its
role in assisting the<br>
>> community to recruit more new blood?<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> NomCom<br>
>> <br>
>> NCSG has been talking for a long time about
the lack of proper<br>
>> representation at the NomCom, the current state of
things is that this<br>
>> part of the community only holds one seat at the
group - currently held<br>
>> by NCUC - and we trust this configuration is not
really representative<br>
>> of the diversity of stakeholders within GNSO or
even proportional if we<br>
>> consider that other SGs hold more than just one
seat. Therefore we have<br>
>> a very simple question: is there a possibility of
rebalancing the<br>
>> NomCom?<br>
>> <br>
>> Julf<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
>> <<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>><br>
>> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><font style="color:rgb(136,136,136)">
<div><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">John Gbadamosi </font></div>
<div><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Programme Officer, Digital
Rights </font></div>
<div><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Media Rights Agenda<br>
</font></div>
<div><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Internet of Rights (IoR) Fellow </font></div>
<div><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Article 19, UK</font></div>
</font><font style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><font style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">+2348099817296<br>
<a href="mailto:john@mediarightsagenda.org" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">john@mediarightsagenda.org</a> <br>
@Samjohn70</font></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre cols="72" style="font-family:monospace">--
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
</pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div>