[NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics
farzaneh badii
farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM
Wed Mar 1 11:23:47 EET 2023
Hi
If we don’t have enough time we should give some questions to NCUC to ask.
Also why are we back at scripted board questions again! I thought last year
we agreed being scripted doesn’t creat conversation…
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 11:19 AM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
> 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
>
> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230301/3220a336/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list