<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi John,</p>
<p>Tx for your revisions to Stephanie's email. <i>Did you see my
email of 3/1 at 11:17am (Eastern)?? </i><br>
</p>
<p>We are deeply invested in Applicant Support, but frankly, we
(NCSG/NCUC/NPOC) have provided precious little guidance on the
topic in the last 10 years, including missing some recent input
deadlines. Forgive me, but we are long on complaints, and short on
solutions, and in a technical policy group, <i>we need to find
the solutions.</i></p>
<p>I offered some of them in the email I reference above. I believe
our questions have already been shared,and thus, Applicant Support
is on the agenda for our Board meeting. We are free to revise the
question/segment a bit. <i>What do you think of the two
timeframes for promotion I offer? </i><br>
</p>
<p>I see and hear your deep concern - but again, what solutions or
options do we want to recommend? We all want balance due process,
inclusiveness, and diversity, but the Board will want to know how
YOU and NCSG/NCUC/NPOC recommend they do it. Again, per my email:
What is the timeframe for publicity of this program? <i>I give
some very specific and constructive ideas we can bring forward.
What do you think? What specific and constructive guidance
would you give the Board based on the groups you know are likely
to need and use the Applicant Support Program. I've been
checking on my side, and I assume you have too. That insight and
information is timely, even critical right now. </i><br>
</p>
<p>Further, were you on the SubPro ODP meeting Wed? Staff reports
that the Board approved the reduction of application fees for
Applicant Support groups, but <u>rejected </u>the recommendation
of SubPro that ICANN provide additional forms of support to
applicants, including legal and technical counseling and advice
for the application. The Board apparently saw potential conflicts
of interest. <i>How can we in NCSG/NCUC/NPOC preserve this vital
recommendation and find a way that ICANN can help provide these
services without ICANN being legally responsible?</i></p>
<p><i>I've taken this email off the main list and copied it to NCSG
Policy Comment and NCUC Chair Benjamin who is very involved in
these issues.</i></p>
<p><i>Let's be constructive, even positive, in this critically
important moment - what constructive ideas, comments, tangible
ways to move forward can we provide? I promise you that the
Board is listening. Will you be in Cancun to deliver this
question in person? <br>
</i></p>
<p><i>Best, Kathy</i><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/1/2023 9:51 AM, John Gbadamosi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFjNNRrjtcU_Occ7t7F_8m0fgAsLWQU-B9bcExSVgwGx5PB0pg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true"><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;"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="46" height="29"></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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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>
31<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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">julf.helsingius@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> [You don't often get email from <a
href="mailto:julf.helsingius@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">julf.helsingius@gmail.com</a>.
Learn why this is important at <a
href="https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">julf@julf.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:julf@julf.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>><br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
>> <<a
href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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 style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"
color="#888888">
<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 style="color:rgb(136,136,136)" color="#888888"><font
color="#000000">+2348099817296<br>
<a href="mailto:john@mediarightsagenda.org"
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">john@mediarightsagenda.org</a> <br>
@Samjohn70</font></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
</pre>
</body>
</html>