[NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics

[Stephanie E Perrin]

On 2023-03-01 9:09 a.m., Digital wrote:
I am also throwing in a third question for your review.  I am probably 
in the minority in my lack of desire for travel these days, but it seems 
that we spend an inordinate amount of time planning for meetings that do 
very little to further our goals of inclusion, recruitment, and policy 
fairness.
So question 3 would be:
3.  Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation of 
ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?  How much money was saved by 
not travelling, and what were the impacts on policy effectiveness, 
outreach and inclusion?  Should ICANN continue to travel to the extent 
that it does, given concern for our carbon footprint?  what do we gain, 
and what do we lose with this attempt at global outreach and are there 
better ways to meet with different regional populations and markets?
> 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. The SubPro 
> ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 months prior 
> to the anticipated opening of the application submission period. The 
> ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where 
> option 2 would only require 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. We appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and 
> enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, but the NCSG feels 
> strongly that the next round will be unfair 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. Option 2 
> is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to 
> fundamental fairness and concern for small organizations in this 
> competitive environment. 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, 
> particularly with respect to the SubPro ODA?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230301/1ddc022f/attachment.htm>