No it isn’t Kathy. I am talking about the concept of small team plus! It
was also it was also misrepresented to the GAC and it opens a can of worms.
But that ship has sailed which is very unfortunate since I raised and the
NCSG council members agreed in DC that small groups can be abused. The fun
part of this is that people who came up with this idea frame it as “oh you
wanted transparency so we made the small team bigger!”. Unfortunate really
but I can’t do anything about it and I am not convinced by your
explanation, but I just see that we keep backing off from the things we
discuss and want!
On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 9:57 PM Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Farzi,
>
> What Anne and Tomslin, Stephanie and others have been working on is a
> revision to SubPro Working Group Recommendation 17.2 that the Board will
> accept. As we discussed in the Issues Forum, SubPro WG Recommendation 17.2
> called for a fuller range of support for those New gTLD Applicants
> qualifying for Applicant Support, including technical, legal and business
> support. The ICANN Board (read: ICANN Legal) had fiduciary concerns (e.g.,
> paying directly for someone else's lawyer) and the "what if" far more
> Applicants need Support than ICANN budgeted for.
>
> But 17.2 is a critical policy recommendation, duly created by a PDP WG and
> adopted by the Council. Tomslin, Stephanie, and some in ALAC (as we shared
> very openly at the Issues Forum) have been worked to clarify, define and
> show (a) how very, very important these extra services, counseling and
> support will be for legal, business and technical issues, and (b) how by
> careful planning and using strategies we all now well (like Incubators and
> Non-Profits), service providers/experts can scale a class, say on "creating
> a sustainable business plan for a gTLD" from 10 to 100 people/organizations
> (beauty of a Zoom room).
>
> It's not new policy; it's modification to preserve a recommendation that
> impacts those groups most in need of support. Since we cannot reconstitute
> the SubPro Working Group (finished in 2020), it is up to the Council to
> make these, yes, policy tweaks. This Council SubPro Small Team, in turn,
> makes the policy recommendation revision text - and yes, the full Council
> should review and approve it (or dismiss it).
>
> While I share your concerns overall about the power of Council Small
> Teams, I think the use here is within bounds and works to do something
> appropriate that has no other avenue. Best, Kathy
> On 10/24/2023 5:25 AM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>
> Dear NCSG and Councillors
>
> We cannot allow this small team plus go ahead. It is becoming a policy
> development group of its own. Councillors, please follow up on this.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: DiBiase, Gregory via council <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [council] [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] Point of Order - Sub
> Pro Pending Recommendations Small Team Work
> To: Paul McGrady <[log in to unmask]>, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
> [log in to unmask]>, Anne ICANN <[log in to unmask]>,
> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> CC: [log in to unmask] <
> [log in to unmask]>, Terri Agnew via cou. <
> [log in to unmask]>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I understand the concern about stating definitively that Applicant Support
> would constitute mere "Implementation Guidance" rather than actual policy.
> But I’m not sure that’s the case. My understanding was that outputs from
> the Small Team Plus that are sent to Council for consideration would likely
> consist of both a Supplemental Recommendation and Implementation
> Guidance. Is that accurate Paul?
>
>
>
> Anne and Tomslin- do you have any concerns with telling the Board that
> both a Supplemental Recommendation and Implementation Guidance is something
> the small team is considering and ultimately will bring to the broader
> council for their approval?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Paul McGrady
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:42 AM
> *To:* Tomslin Samme-Nlar <[log in to unmask]>; Anne ICANN <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]; Terri Agnew via cou. <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] [council] Point of
> Order - Sub Pro Pending Recommendations Small Team Work
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi Anne and Tomslin,
>
>
>
> Thank you both for this. If the goal is to *only* make a Supplemental
> Recommendation, that relegates us to *only* a Policy position and *no
> position on implementation*. This is inconsistent with how the GNSO has
> been acting for many years. Saying that we will have (1) a policy
> Supplemental Recommendation *AND* (2) implementation guidance is nothing
> radical at all. Based on Anne’s email, I think we should take a few
> minutes to level set in our next call so that everyone can be reminded
> about the difference between policy recommendations and implementation
> guidance. But I don’t think we need to take some decision before speaking
> with the Board on whether or not Council has the ability to issue both
> policy Supplemental Recommendations *and* Implementation Guidance. The
> Council clearly does.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* council <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Tomslin
> Samme-Nlar via council
> *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2023 8:00 PM
> *To:* Anne ICANN <[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]; Terri Agnew via cou. <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] Point of Order - Sub
> Pro Pending Recommendations Small Team Work
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Thank you, Anne for pointing this out. I too do not recall any agreement
> as to the approach to tackle the Applicant Support ideas, other than that
> the 'idea' was floated on Sunday as an option.
>
>
>
> I think there is also agreement that all proposals/recommendations from
> the Small Team must be approved by the council before they become official
> council positions. In fact, during our meeting on Sunday, it was stressed
> that this be strictly adhered to, especially now that non-council members
> are being invites to form 'Small Team Plus".
>
>
>
> I therefore support Anne's request that we avoid socialising this idea of
> using implementation guidance and truncating Recommendation 17.2 as the way
> forward to address Board's concerns on Applicant support until the council
> approves it.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, 22:43 Anne ICANN, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Sub Pro Small Team,
>
>
>
> Today I heard our Sub Pro Small Team fearless leader Paul announce to the
> GAC that the ideas around Applicant Support that will be developed by the
> "Small Team Plus" will constitute "Implementation Guidance" for the Board.
> Of course in Sub Pro "speak", Implementation Guidance is a term of art that
> means the ideas will not constitute a policy recommendation as contemplated
> by Annex A, Section 9 which speaks of Supplemental Recommendations which
> are policy recommendations. I commented on this in our Small Team meeting
> on Saturday. (For clarity, "implementation Guidance" is a defined term in
> the Sub Pro Final Report and it is not obligatory if the Board finds that
> it is impractical.)
>
>
>
> Although Paul began to speak about Implementation Guidance in the small
> team meeting on Saturday, I don't recall a consensus being developed on
> this approach. Perhaps more importantly, it strikes me that the decision
> as to whether the ideas to be put forward in the Supplemental
> Recommendation for Applicant Support will constitute Implementation
> Guidance (and not policy per se) is actually a question for Council and not
> for the Small Team alone to decide as this is in fact a policy matter.
>
>
>
> Perhaps Paul (and staff?) are thinking this is the only workable approach
> because of the many ideas that have been put forward. The thought may be
> that no one idea (or merging of ideas into one consensus Supplemental
> Recommendation) will be feasible. Or that this process would take too
> long, if achievable at all? These are all very real concerns.
>
>
>
> However, I do need to raise this Point of Order before the meeting with
> the Board where the Board Statement on Sub Pro Non-Adoption will be
> reviewed. I believe that in respecting the boundaries of Small Team work,
> we would need authorization from Council to state to the Board that
> suggestions for providing expanded assistance in the realm of Applicant
> Support would constitute mere "Implementation Guidance" rather than actual
> policy Recommendations which are Supplemental in nature pursuant to Annex
> A, Section 9.
>
>
>
> Of course it would be easier for the Board to accept a truncated
> Recommendation 17.2 which is not specific other than to say "expand
> Applicant Support". Then we could tack on various Implementation Guidance
> ideas which do not actually bind the Board. However, again I believe that
> if that is to be the approach taken by the Small Team, it should be
> approved in advance by Council.)
>
>
>
> As incoming Chair, Greg has already indicated in his presentation to
> Council his concern in relation to transparency of Council small team
> work. So let's be very careful about this one as we are due to go before
> the Board to discuss the non-adopted items in the pending Sub Pro Final
> Report Recommendations. Could we please discuss this further in our Closed
> Session? I do not think the same statement made today to the GAC should be
> repeated before the Board without authorization from Council.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subpropendingrecs-st
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> --
> Kathy Kleiman
> President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>
>
|
