[NCSG-PC] ICANN76 Board Questions/Topics- focusing on our Applicant Support Question
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at dnrc.tech
Fri Mar 3 16:31:22 EET 2023
Hi John,
Tx for your revisions to Stephanie's email. /Did you see my email of 3/1
at 11:17am (Eastern)?? /
We are deeply invested in Applicant Support, but frankly, we
(NCSG/NCUC/NPOC) have provided precious little guidance on the topic in
the last 10 years, including missing some recent input deadlines.
Forgive me, but we are long on complaints, and short on solutions, and
in a technical policy group, /we need to find the solutions./
I offered some of them in the email I reference above. I believe our
questions have already been shared,and thus, Applicant Support is on the
agenda for our Board meeting. We are free to revise the question/segment
a bit. /What do you think of the two timeframes for promotion I offer? /
I see and hear your deep concern - but again, what solutions or options
do we want to recommend? We all want balance due process,
inclusiveness, and diversity, but the Board will want to know how YOU
and NCSG/NCUC/NPOC recommend they do it. Again, per my email: What is
the timeframe for publicity of this program? /I give some very specific
and constructive ideas we can bring forward. What do you think? What
specific and constructive guidance would you give the Board based on the
groups you know are likely to need and use the Applicant Support
Program. I've been checking on my side, and I assume you have too. That
insight and information is timely, even critical right now. /
Further, were you on the SubPro ODP meeting Wed? Staff reports that
the Board approved the reduction of application fees for Applicant
Support groups, but _rejected _the recommendation of SubPro that ICANN
provide additional forms of support to applicants, including legal and
technical counseling and advice for the application. The Board
apparently saw potential conflicts of interest. /How can we in
NCSG/NCUC/NPOC preserve this vital recommendation and find a way that
ICANN can help provide these services without ICANN being legally
responsible?/
/I've taken this email off the main list and copied it to NCSG Policy
Comment and NCUC Chair Benjamin who is very involved in these issues./
/Let's be constructive, even positive, in this critically important
moment - what constructive ideas, comments, tangible ways to move
forward can we provide? I promise you that the Board is listening.
Will you be in Cancun to deliver this question in person?
/
/Best, Kathy/
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
> 31
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230303/a3f70f65/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list