We are running out of time. Can you agree on a formulation, and
either put it in this document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XEuQ_0OqNFFR8rLlAtky5SpU0MaFPzo1rWLzw9MzLuQ/edit?usp=sharing
or send them to Andrea (<[log in to unmask]>) BEFORE 23:59 UTC?
Julf
On 01/03/2023 17:17, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> This is a fine question and a good concern, so let me throw it back to
> you. /How much time do you want? Why don't we (NCSG) ask for it in the
> question? /
>
> (Quick note that I have investigated and found that *3 years *is a
> reasonable time frame for working with indigenous peoples in North
> America (where I am from). That's probably too long. If 18 months is
> too short and 3 years is too long - what is reasonable to request?
> Let's put a new timeframe on the table.
>
> (If we propose a timeframe, we should try to back it up with some
> research and analysis.)
>
> Also, ICANN is thinking the Applicant Support Program /*will begin
> *//*after the Applicant Guidebook*//*with _all the details of the New
> gTLD applications _published.
> */
>
> But why? Why does the Applicant Support Program have have wait until
> every last details of the Applicant Guidebook is finalized? After that
> happens, after the Guidebook is done, ICANN will be rolling out the
> program as fast as possible. Nothing will stop it.
>
> /*But why should Applicant Support Program wait until then? */*You (we)
> could, through rewording of this question, propose that ICANN starts the
> Applicant Support marketing program **now or soon.** *Why not?
> Indigenous peoples, minority groups, Global South NGOs need the big
> picture ideas of New gTLDs from ICANN now. /ICANN could tell them //_now
> _//(in general) what is the New gTLD program, what is involved in being
> a gTLD Registry, and what is involved (generally) we applying for a New
> gTLD (technical, operational and financial criteria). That's what these
> organizations need now - as you point out below - to begin their
> evaluation. /Why not start this marketing by ICANN NOW?
>
> Then *Part II *of the Applicant Support Program could come at 18 months,
> or *better and fairer, Two Years, before new gTLD applications are due.
> *By this point, the follow-up and voluminous details of the New gTLD
> Applicant Guidebook will be available and ICANN could follow-up with
> even more details and guidance about the Applicant Support Program
> (including how low they can go with the application for NGOs, tribes,
> indigenous peoples, and minority groups that apply.
>
> But don't we ask to start start NOW?
>
> (Here's a link to the 2012 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, and truly,
> we're not changing it too much going forward.
> https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb )
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> Kathy Kleiman
>
> 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
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> will work on it right now
>> Steph
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 1, 2023, at 08:50, Johan Helsingius
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > [You don't often get email from [log in to unmask]
>> 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 <[log in to unmask]
>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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
>> >> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>> >> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NCSG-PC mailing list
>> > [log in to unmask]
>> > 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
>> [log in to unmask]
>> @Samjohn70
>
> --
> Kathy Kleiman
> President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>
|
