[NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics

[Digital]

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