<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2023-03-01 9:09 a.m., Digital wrote:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I am also throwing in a third question
for your review. I am probably in the minority in my lack of
desire for travel these days, but it seems that we spend an
inordinate amount of time planning for meetings that do very
little to further our goals of inclusion, recruitment, and policy
fairness.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">So question 3 would be:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">3. Has the Board reviewed the
effectiveness of the implementation of ICANN's mandate during the
COVID lockdown? How much money was saved by not travelling, and
what were the impacts on policy effectiveness, outreach and
inclusion? Should ICANN continue to travel to the extent that it
does, given concern for our carbon footprint? what do we gain,
and what do we lose with this attempt at global outreach and are
there better ways to meet with different regional populations and
markets?<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:9EAA7C68-0ADC-4916-B6A1-4DA002B73175@digitaldiscretion.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">1.
In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that the
Board 'anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the final
decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can you
elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
<font size="5">
2.
Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The SubPro
ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18
months prior to the anticipated opening of the application submission period.
The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where
option 2 would only require 18 months of implementation. </font><font size="5"><font size="5">While the GGP
continues its work, </font></font><font size="5">it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant
Support Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline of
Option 2. We appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and
enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the next round will be unfair if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely effective
applicant support program. </font></pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:9EAA7C68-0ADC-4916-B6A1-4DA002B73175@digitaldiscretion.ca">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><font size="5">We have received questions from the Board
about how to be agile and come up with new ways of working on issues to
increase efficiency,. However, we fear this desire to move things
forward can damage the inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that
defines ICANN. Option 2 is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to fundamental fairness and concern for small organizations in this competitive environment. How does the
Board plan to balance the desire to be agile without compromising the
due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of the multistakeholder model
in its deliberations, particularly with respect to the SubPro ODA?</font>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>