[NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at DNRC.TECH
Wed Mar 1 11:17:38 EET 2023
Hi John,
This is a fine question and a good concern, so let me throw it back to
you. /How much time do you want? Why don't we (NCSG) ask for it in the
question? /
(Quick note that I have investigated and found that *3 years *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.
(If we propose a timeframe, we should try to back it up with some
research and analysis.)
Also, ICANN is thinking the Applicant Support Program /*will begin
*//*after the Applicant Guidebook*//*with _all the details of the New
gTLD applications _published.
*/
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.
/*But why should Applicant Support Program wait until then? */*You (we)
could, through rewording of this question, propose that ICANN starts the
Applicant Support marketing program **now or soon.** *Why not?
Indigenous peoples, minority groups, Global South NGOs need the big
picture ideas of New gTLDs from ICANN now. /ICANN could tell them //_now
_//(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. /Why not start this marketing by ICANN NOW?
Then *Part II *of the Applicant Support Program could come at 18 months,
or *better and fairer, Two Years, before new gTLD applications are due.
*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.
But don't we ask to start start NOW?
(Here's a link to the 2012 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, and truly,
we're not changing it too much going forward.
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb )
Best, Kathy
Kathy Kleiman
On 3/1/2023 9:51 AM, John Gbadamosi wrote:
> I have rephrased question 2, let us see if this is better:
> 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.
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 3:18 PM Digital
> <stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:
>
> will work on it right now
> Steph
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 1, 2023, at 08:50, Johan Helsingius
> <julf.helsingius at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [You don't often get email from julf.helsingius at gmail.com.
> Learn why this is important at
> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> >
> > Great questions! Thanks!
> >
> > Can anyone help streamline question 2? I would make an attempt,
> > but I am in transit right now...
> >
> > Julf
> >
> >
> >> On 01/03/2023 11:12, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen wrote:
> >> My question:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> 2.
> >> Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. In the
> SubPro
> >> ODA, it was suggested that the applicant support program starts 18
> >> months prior to the anticipated application submission period
> opening.
> >> The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs,
> where
> >> option 2 only requires 18 months of implementation. While the GGP
> >> continues its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the
> Applicant
> >> Support Program in time for the next round in the aggressive
> timeline of
> >> Option 2. While we appreciate the org's effort in mitigating
> risks and
> >> enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, the next round
> would be
> >> meaningless if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely
> effective
> >> applicant support program. 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. And Option 2 could be the exact example. 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, including SubPro ODA?
> >>
> >> The second question is a bit wordy and I'm afraid not as clear.
> >> Appreciate if anyone would help editing/rephrasing to make it
> clearer!
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Manju
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:59 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com
> >> <mailto:julf at julf.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just as a reminder, here are the questions from our last
> >> session with the board:
> >>
> >> PDPs Effectiveness and Volunteer fatigue
> >>
> >> NCSG would like to discuss Board Approval,
> implementation by
> >> ICANN
> >> org and delays of several PDPs - something we have already
> discussed
> >> with you in previous occasions. If we look at processes such
> as the
> >> EPDP
> >> related ones I think we can find a good example due
> >>
> >> to the fact that even despite the fact that the board
> didn't yet
> >> approve phase 2 recommendation, which were submitted in
> 2020, there is
> >> talk about the design paper of SSAD light. And in the past
> years, I
> >> guess we started gathering more examples of where the
> development
> >> process drags on for far too long and the implementation
> becomes the
> >> place de facto to redo policy recommendations. So NCSG would
> like to
> >> request the board for comments about the current speed or
> even how do
> >> you plan to work together with GNSO and its groups on possible
> >> improvements to the PDPs timeline and so on.
> >>
> >> What efforts are channeled to keep the people in the
> community
> >> from volunteer fatigue?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Whois Disclosure System
> >>
> >> The recently published Whois Disclosure System design
> paper
> >> mentioned a risk that the system might not provide
> actionable data for
> >> use to answer questions raised by the SSAD ODA and this
> makes us a
> >> little concerned about the EPDP recommendations. The
> direction this
> >> work
> >> is going seems to point towards the intention to throw away
> the EPDP
> >> recommendations related to SSAD. I'd like to know what the
> board thinks
> >> about this concern.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ICANN Leadership positions
> >>
> >> What is the Board’s take on the phenomenon of ICANN
> recycling
> >> veterans for leadership positions. Does the Board think it’s
> beneficial
> >> for the community to have the usual suspects rotating between
> >> leadership
> >> roles of different stakeholder groups? How do we fix this
> if we agree
> >> this is a problem? How does the Board imagine its role in
> assisting the
> >> community to recruit more new blood?
> >>
> >>
> >> NomCom
> >>
> >> NCSG has been talking for a long time about the lack
> of proper
> >> representation at the NomCom, the current state of things is
> that this
> >> part of the community only holds one seat at the group -
> currently held
> >> by NCUC - and we trust this configuration is not really
> representative
> >> of the diversity of stakeholders within GNSO or even
> proportional if we
> >> consider that other SGs hold more than just one seat.
> Therefore we have
> >> a very simple question: is there a possibility of
> rebalancing the
> >> NomCom?
> >>
> >> Julf
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NCSG-PC mailing list
> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> --
> John Gbadamosi
> Programme Officer, Digital Rights
> Media Rights Agenda
> Internet of Rights (IoR) Fellow
> Article 19, UK
> +2348099817296
> john at mediarightsagenda.org
> @Samjohn70
--
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230301/631f163c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list