[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Thanks for your comments, Kathy.
I am not an expert in this area but your proposal of using experts from
global south, indigenous communities and minority communities on one hand
and technical experts on the other sounds like a good idea to me.

It'll be good to hear what others here think.

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Mon, 18 July 2022, 12:33 Kathy Kleiman, <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Tx Tomslin for sharing!  I wish, I wish, we could take the lead on this,
> but I know time is stretched all round.  Do we have a good person who could
> serve on the Small Group?
>
> What do others think?
>
> I see some merit in Kurt's proposal.  I think this should go farther -
> much farther - to define "to retain and employ the outside skills necessary
> to create the Applicant Support program framework."
>
> Who?  This should be given considerable thought by NCSG and the GNSO
> Council. IMHO, we don't want the usual US consulting firms, but experts
> from and in Global South communities, indigenous peoples (in the Global
> South and Global North), minority communities, and likely linguists to
> think through IDN issues for these communities to.  (I'll call them
> "Applicant Support Communities").
>
> And a separate group of technical gTLD experts. As the Subpro WG discussed
> and included in their recommendation and supporting language, many
> communities and peoples will need more than just application fees.  They'll
> need consulting and other support in planning to apply for and run a gTLD
> (including IDN gTLDs), then filling out the detailed ICANN gTLD application
> (a big process!), paying submission fees, then preparing for the work of
> managing and running a gTLD (also a lot of work!). This is not just my
> view, but SubPro WG's discussion.
>
> Overall, if the Applicant Support program framework, heads in this
> direction, it will need "outside skills" with experts who know the
> Applicant Support Communities and how to reach and work with them, and [a
> different group] technical experts to work with applicants who know what a
> gTLD application is (technical, operational, financial requirements) and
> what it takes to run one once they get the gTLD delegation from ICANN.
>
> *If you agree with the assessment above**, how can we build these details
> expressly into Kurt's countrproposal (he says he is receptive to
> amendments).*
>
> Best and tx, Kathy
> On 7/15/2022 4:45 PM, Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>
> Hi Policy committee members,
>
> I'd like to hear what you think of this counter proposal from Kurt.
> Specifically, he wants that rather than *a 30-member (20 active, 10
> alternate) Steering Committee to complete the Applicant Support program
> development, the Council should form a small team that works with ICANN to
> retain and employ the outside skills necessary to create the Applicant
> Support program framework*.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: kurt kjpritz.com via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 at 03:11
> Subject: Re: [council] Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance
> Process on Applicant Support
> To: Fouquart <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>, council at gnso.icann.org <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
> Hello Councilors:
>
> I am writing to offer an amendment to the Motion to initiate the
> GNSO Guidance Process (GGP). It is enough of a departure from the original
> that I don’t think it can / will be considered a friendly amendment. In any
> case, I think it’d be beneficial to the outcome if we debated the two
> approaches and decided on one. I think the discussion is as important as
> the outcome.
>
> The amendment more directly affects the GGP Initiation Request that is
> incorporated into the motion. It seeks to simplify the process for creating
> an Applicant Support Program. (An Initiation Request is a prerequisite to
> launching a GGP.)
>
> *Background and Recent Developments:* The SubPro Final Report recommended
> that a “dedicated IRT” be created to flesh out the
> Applicant Support Program. In response, the ODP Team expressed concern that
> the work recommended by SubPro was potentially out of scope of the role for
> an IRT and should be returned to the GNSO.
>
> The Council recognized that this work could be accomplished using the GNSO
> Guidance Process (GGP), which is flexible, i.e., adaptable to the needs
> of various policy-related tasks.
>
> The current motion calls for the creation of a 30-member (20 active, 10
> alternate) Steering Committee to complete the Applicant Support program
> development with the added implication that this group could be used for
> additional policy / implementation issues.
>
> *Recommendation:* Rather than a Steering Committee, the Council should
> form a small team that works with ICANN to retain and employ the outside
> skills necessary to create the Applicant Support program framework.
>
> *Rationale for this Recommendation:*
>
> 1.     We approved the SubPro Final Report, so we should do what it says.
> The Report advised that a community-based team would not possess the
> requisite skills to develop the Applicant Support program and an
> issue-specific team with the necessary outside skillsets should be formed.
> Creating a 30-member community team is, at best, an unnecessary step and,
> more likely, is the antithesis of the SubPro Report direction and
> disrespectful of valuable volunteer time.
>
> 2.     Creating a small team does not contradict the participatory,
> bottom-up model. The broad community discussed this topic for five years
> and provided the best direction it could, to take the discussion out from
> under the community umbrella. In any event, no GNSO stakeholder group would
> be precluded from sending a member to this small team, and whatever
> Applicant Support program is recommended, the community will have the
> opportunity to discuss it prior to adoption.
>
> 3.     Nor is a standing 30-person Steering Committee likely to be an
> economical or effective approach if asked to consider additional issues.
> This steering committee likely would be populated by those interested in
> the Applicant Support program and not have the necessary skill sets for,
> or interest in, tackling different issues.  Community members interested in
> subsequent issues would likely be closed out of participating because the
> committee would be populated by those interested in the Applicant Support
> program. So, the 30-member committee, already demonstrated to be
> inefficient for the purpose of sorting the Applicant Support issues, would
> also be ineffectual on the subsequent issues.
>
> 4.     This is likely to be an extended commitment on the part of our
> depleted volunteer workforce. Cannot we, as managers of the policy process,
> manage these important areas of policy / implementation administration, and
> reserve volunteers’ valuable time for substantive work? In the meantime, we
> can launch this first-ever GGP effort, keep it narrow to make it efficient,
> and learn from it.
>
> I’ve attached an alternative GGP Initiation Request. Amendments and
> additional discussion are welcome
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2022, at 3:46 AM, philippe.fouquart--- via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
> Please find attached the GNSO Guidance Process associated with the motion
> circulated on Monday.
>
> This version is intended to incorporate comments made in The Hague,
> notably on focusing on applicant support and the flexibility bw a steering
> group and subteams. A couple of additional things that leadership would
> like to draw your attention to in case you’d have an opinion:
>
>    - the need for the GNSO Liaison to the ODP to be a (non voting) member (that’s
>    under 5.)
>    - the explicit acknowledgement that this group may deliver their
>    results after the conclusion of the ODP or even the Board’s vote. (under 7)
>
>
> Thanks.
> Regards,
> Philippe
>
>
> *From:* FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET
> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2022 5:14 PM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Cc:* 'gnso-secs at icann.org' <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on
> Applicant Support
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
> Following our discussion in The Hague, please find attached the Motion for
> the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support submitted
> to the July 21st Council meeting. It will be updated with the link to the
> GGP within a few days.
>
> Regards,
> Philippe
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> <SubProGGPInitiationRequest_13July2022.docx>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20220718/3017dd7f/attachment.htm>