Thanks Kurt, and thanks Philippe.
I agree that I’d like to talk with my BC colleagues before any vote, and in full transparency I haven’t yet done that nor will I be able to before the meeting at (my) 7 a.m. tomorrow.
So this in my personal capacity: I can’t help but feel Kurt is right, as we seem to be creating a mirror of Council and I’m not sure that’s the best route. While the idea of the GGP to work on Applicant
Support makes sense, and people from the community (and not just the Council) who are expert in SubPro would be best placed to lead that with external expertise as foreseen, a whole new 30 person structure does seem rather cumbersome, especially as we’d also
be looking at other WGs.
The aim, so far as I understand it, is to ensure that Applicant Support is correctly scoped, designed and actually works, and that goes beyond an IRT – all logical. And it should be done correctly
but rapidly; again, logical. I’ve gone back and read everything from May again, and Kurt’s ideas do seem more streamlined and practical.
That said, perso view, so please let me talk with the BC before giving an official view!
Best to all
Marie
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>
On Behalf Of philippe.fouquart--- via council
Sent: Wednesday, 20 July 2022 12:07
To: Devan Reed <devan.reed@icann.org>; kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com>; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] [gnso-secs] Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support
Dear Kurt, Dear Councilors,
Thanks for the proposed amendment, we have reviewed the proposal and given that the change significantly departs from the initial approach of the steering committee, as you noted it
cannot be considered as friendly. The vote will then be planned in two parts, and the agenda changed accordingly.
This said, I understand that some SG/Cs may need more time or at least some prior discussion tomorrow to review the pros and cons of each alternative before voting on this, hopefully
on one preferred approach. If this is the case and if a deferral is requested, I would see no harm in having a discussion tomorrow for us to vote at the August meeting.
Thank you.
Regards,
Philippe
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>
On Behalf Of Devan Reed via council
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 8:08 PM
To: kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com>;
council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] [gnso-secs] Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support
Dear Kurt,
Thank you for proposing this amendment.
Next steps are as follows:
Philippe Fouquart and Sebastien Ducos, as submitter and seconder of the motion, will consider it and come back to council either:
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Devan
From:
Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "kurt kjpritz.com via Gnso-secs" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Reply-To: "kurt kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com>
Date: Friday, July 15, 2022 at 12:12 PM
To: Fouquart <philippe.fouquart@orange.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-secs] [council] Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support
Hello Councilors:
I am writing to offer an amendment to the Motion to initiate the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP). It is enough of a departure from the original that I don’t think it can / will be considered a friendly amendment. In any case, I think it’d be beneficial to the outcome
if we debated the two approaches and decided on one. I think the discussion is as important as the outcome.
The amendment more directly affects the GGP Initiation Request that is incorporated into the motion. It seeks to simplify the process for creating an Applicant Support Program. (An Initiation Request is a prerequisite to launching a GGP.)
Background and Recent Developments: The SubPro Final Report recommended that a “dedicated IRT” be created to flesh out the Applicant Support Program. In response, the ODP Team expressed concern that the work recommended by SubPro was potentially out
of scope of the role for an IRT and should be returned to the GNSO.
The Council recognized that this work could be accomplished using the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP), which is flexible, i.e., adaptable to the needs of various policy-related tasks.
The current motion calls for the creation of a 30-member (20 active, 10 alternate) Steering Committee to complete the Applicant Support program development with the added implication that this group could be used for additional policy / implementation issues.
Recommendation: Rather than a Steering Committee, the Council should form a small team that works with ICANN to retain and employ the outside skills necessary to create the Applicant Support program framework.
Rationale for this Recommendation:
1. We approved the SubPro Final Report, so we should do what it says. The Report advised that a community-based team would not possess the requisite skills to develop the Applicant Support program and an issue-specific team with the necessary outside skillsets
should be formed. Creating a 30-member community team is, at best, an unnecessary step and, more likely, is the antithesis of the SubPro Report direction and disrespectful of valuable volunteer time.
2. Creating a small team does not contradict the participatory, bottom-up model. The broad community discussed this topic for five years and provided the best direction it could, to take the discussion out from under the community umbrella. In any event,
no GNSO stakeholder group would be precluded from sending a member to this small team, and whatever Applicant Support program is recommended, the community will have the opportunity to discuss it prior to adoption.
3. Nor is a standing 30-person Steering Committee likely to be an economical or effective approach if asked to consider additional issues. This steering committee likely would be populated by those interested in the Applicant Support program and not have
the necessary skill sets for, or interest in, tackling different issues. Community members interested in subsequent issues would likely be closed out of participating because the committee would be populated by those interested in the Applicant Support program.
So, the 30-member committee, already demonstrated to be inefficient for the purpose of sorting the Applicant Support issues, would also be ineffectual on the subsequent issues.
4. This is likely to be an extended commitment on the part of our depleted volunteer workforce. Cannot we, as managers of the policy process, manage these important areas of policy / implementation administration, and reserve volunteers’ valuable time for
substantive work? In the meantime, we can launch this first-ever GGP effort, keep it narrow to make it efficient, and learn from it.
I’ve attached an alternative GGP Initiation Request. Amendments and additional discussion are welcome
Sincerely,
Kurt