<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks Farzaneh.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>My feeling is that it is important to emphasize that even though we are open to new ideas, there are some basics that any process needs to adhere to.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I quickly drafted the following which maybe can help further the discussion. I tried to integrate the point that I have heard and that Stephanie just made.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ken<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>The NCSG welcomes efforts by the board to identify innovative approaches to improving the policy-making process. We understand that it can be useful to try different ways to overcome some of the bottlenecks that frequently inhibit progress on the many important issues we face. Nevertheless, as the board chair today reminded us, inclusivity and diversity are a foundational principle of ICANN, and the existing policy-making structure is designed to protect that. We are concerned that some of the recent forays into “agile approaches” have not always respected the foundational concepts of balanced representation and transparency, including full disclosure of participant’s interests and open meetings. We are open to new ideas, as long as they respect these basic principles and lead back to the established mechanisms at the core of ICANN’s multistakeholder decision-making process. The NCSG will strongly resist any effort to undermine the policy-making mechanisms articulated in the bylaws. We observe that by refraining from recent practices of re-opening settled decisions and policy recommendations and adding layers of implementation and enforcement processes, such as ODAs, will drive policy-making to conclusions. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> <b>On Behalf Of </b>farzaneh badii<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 13, 2023 9:19 AM<br><b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br><b>Subject:</b> Question from the Board and our answer<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>All,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>We have an NCSG board meeting today and the Board is asking a peculiar question:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>“The ICANN Board would like to explore how to<br>combine the efficiencies of an agile approach to problem solving, like<br>the Council’s small teams, with the need for accountability and<br>transparency, to make progress on policy conversations. When would such<br>an approach be most appropriate and how can we ensure that it does not<br>circumvent required steps in a policy development process? »<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>We discussed this during the NCSG meeting yesterday. In a nutshell we don't think an "agile approach" that is not predicted in the bylaws is appropriate at all. If the Board wants to make the processes more efficient and effective, they can refrain from re-opening the issues and rehashing the policy recommendations that we make in policy development processes. Also adding layers and layers of implementation and enforcement processes such as ODAs don't help with efficiency. Unfortunately the push for efficiency and the board desire to re-open issues or be creative in resolving unsolved matters has led to creating processes that are ad hoc and might not be in accordance with the bylaws. One such group that the board created and we objected to is the group on closed generics. (<b>we need to discuss this point)</b><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>this is my opinion which we can discuss:</span></b><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>The Council's small teams are not "agile processes". They are internal processes that don't violate the bylaws because the small teams don't make the decision, they just lay the groundwork for decision-making at the council level and they have to discuss all the issues with the council. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Please weigh in so that we can wrap it up by 3 PM. Also what's with the obsession with the word "agile". Somebody got an MBA recently and went to a WEF meeting?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Farzaneh </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>