I believe the small team ship has sailed. You are very welcome to join any of these small teams. We are painfully aware of the flaws in this process, and are working hard to keep policy making at the formal GNSO level, but without sufficient players covering each of this processes it is extremely difficult. Same goes with the IRTs, not a new problem, we have been fighting back door policy making for the now 11 years that I have been here.....
Please can we get a little more help with some of our members joining policy procedures and small teams. Read the documents, make suggestions to your hardworking team members who cannot keep up with the workflow. Many hands make light work.
Stephanie Perrin
currently trying to cover Council as a councillor, 3 small teams
and following a fourth and fifth. Watching, but unable to join
the meetings due to conflicts, two IRTS.
[log in to unmask]">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!
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
_______________________________________________
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.
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