[NCSG-PC] Questions to the board

[Johan Helsingius]

Any volunteers to present specific questions?

I have Kathy on 5.

Who is doing the final wording of our response to the question from the
board?

	Julf


1.     The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended 
that participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the 
employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working 
group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance 
transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's thoughts 
on this?

2.    Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation of 
ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?  How much money was saved by 
not traveling, 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?

3.    From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? Could 
the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly the 
rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review team to 
figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has one too many 
and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the community isn't able 
to reach consensus to abide by the recommendation that we got six years 
ago, the board should carry it through.

4.    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?

5.    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.

6.    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?

7.    What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at what 
stage are we with that?

8.    What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus sustainable? 
Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when possible) the 
preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, where traveling by 
land would actually be the faster and more convenient option?

9.    What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount of 
time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?


10.    How will ICANN align with the Global  Digital Compact in relation 
to Summit of the Future in 2024