[NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics

[Johan Helsingius]

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>
>