<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="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br><table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de"><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="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"></a></td><td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free.<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail" target="_blank" style="color:#4453ea">www.avast.com</a></td></tr></table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"></a></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">stephanie@digitaldiscretion.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">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" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#888888" style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><div><font color="#000000">John Gbadamosi </font></div><div><font color="#000000">Programme Officer, Digital Rights </font></div><div><font color="#000000">Media Rights Agenda<br></font></div><div><font color="#000000">Internet of Rights (IoR) Fellow </font></div><div><font color="#000000">Article 19, UK</font></div></font><font color="#888888" style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><font color="#000000">+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>