Jordan raises an interesting point here, there's a risk of proliferation of working groups beyond the capacity of the volunteer groups to service. Or more likely there's a focus on a certain topic (e.g. DNS Abuse) for a few years and then attention moves onto the next Big Thing, or there are a few key interested council members who are prepared to invest their time and efforts, but the project then drifts once personnel move on. Should we review annually the number of ad hoc groups, working groups and committees and ratify their continuation for the next 12 months? This could even be combined with some of the triage review of policy priorities vs capacity? From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:15 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Your feed-back on Roadmap ccNSO&UA: Tuesday 21 February Hi all Thanks to you all involved with pulling this together. The proposed suggestions look like a manageable commitment at this time, assuming we can engage some ccNSO community members who are not already involved. I would like to raise one broader issue arising from this for us to consider: Not very long ago we set up a new DNS Abuse group. Now we are setting up another one, and nobody is proposing we shut down the DNS one. If another issue comes along; do we set up another group? And another? In other words - how should we set some parameters about maximum groups, or complexity? Do we just keep going while we have volunteers, dealing with each issue as they arrive? To me that is one reasonable approach - as long as we have volunteers with genuine capacity to engage in the work. Are there other thoughts? Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 ________________________________ From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 7:39:25 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [ccnso-council] Your feed-back on Roadmap ccNSO&UA: Tuesday 21 February Dear all, Following the introduction of the ccNSo & UA roadmap Council meeting 192, could you be so kind to provide your feed-back, if any on the draft (included)? To be most helpful, the ad-hoc group would appreciate to hear from you by Tuesday 21 February 17.00 UTC, Thank you, Kind regards, BArt

Hi all, I completely agree with Jordan re: his remarks about starting up group after group after group. This approach is unsustainable. Triage is a good place to get the way forward sorted. /Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Sean Copeland via Ccnso-council Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 3:20 AM To: Nick Wenban-Smith <Nick.Wenban-Smith@nominet.uk> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Your feed-back on Roadmap ccNSO&UA: Tuesday 21 February These are good points. I agree with triage doing the evaluation, with a recommendation. Their spearheading of it will keep the process quick. Knowing volunteer fatigue is very real, it is incumbent on us to check in with those engaged and this could be helpful. Saying that, I wonder if our various chairs are aware of the concept of “call of chair.” Me Sent from my iPhone I think On Feb 21, 2023, at 16:36, Nick Wenban-Smith via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote:  Jordan raises an interesting point here, there’s a risk of proliferation of working groups beyond the capacity of the volunteer groups to service. Or more likely there’s a focus on a certain topic (e.g. DNS Abuse) for a few years and then attention moves onto the next Big Thing, or there are a few key interested council members who are prepared to invest their time and efforts, but the project then drifts once personnel move on. Should we review annually the number of ad hoc groups, working groups and committees and ratify their continuation for the next 12 months? This could even be combined with some of the triage review of policy priorities vs capacity? From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:15 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Your feed-back on Roadmap ccNSO&UA: Tuesday 21 February Hi all Thanks to you all involved with pulling this together. The proposed suggestions look like a manageable commitment at this time, assuming we can engage some ccNSO community members who are not already involved. I would like to raise one broader issue arising from this for us to consider: Not very long ago we set up a new DNS Abuse group. Now we are setting up another one, and nobody is proposing we shut down the DNS one. If another issue comes along; do we set up another group? And another? In other words - how should we set some parameters about maximum groups, or complexity? Do we just keep going while we have volunteers, dealing with each issue as they arrive? To me that is one reasonable approach - as long as we have volunteers with genuine capacity to engage in the work. Are there other thoughts? Cheers Jordan Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director .au Domain Administration +61-417-243-647 ________________________________ From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 7:39:25 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [ccnso-council] Your feed-back on Roadmap ccNSO&UA: Tuesday 21 February Dear all, Following the introduction of the ccNSo & UA roadmap Council meeting 192, could you be so kind to provide your feed-back, if any on the draft (included)? To be most helpful, the ad-hoc group would appreciate to hear from you by Tuesday 21 February 17.00 UTC, Thank you, Kind regards, BArt _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-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.