Thanks Paul.  i see your point.  I think  in the informal call you raised the possible use of the GGP in connection with consideration of these Board requests.  To my mind, that is a better tool than reconvening the Sub Pro WG as suggested by the Board, especially given the experience of the community with that tool in connection with IGOs.  

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024


On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 7:25 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

Hi Anne,

 

While I am not keen on kicking off a bylaws update, I do agree with you that much of the 38 items are “grounded in risk management principles.”  If PICs haven’t brought the Internet to a grinding halt, the fear that RVCs might seems oddly taken.  I think instead of jumping immediately to a bylaws process or reforming the WG as steps one, we may just want to have frank discussion with the interested Board members about balancing the risk of a sudden sea change in the PICs/RVCs landscape vs. the very real risk to ICANN of irrelevancy if it doesn’t get “product back on the shelves” by opening this next application process.

 

I look forward to speaking with you and the others on the Refreshed Small Team (the “RST”™) in Cancun.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN via council
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:23 PM
To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com>
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Comments on Board SubPro Scorecard

 

Thanks Greg.  Jeff has provided a lot of background as to why the policy was developed as it was in each case.  It occurs to me after today's informal discussion (recording previously provided to the Council list)  that with respect to matters where Council may want to affirm policy recommendations as written, the GNSO Input Process may be the appropriate tool.  I'm sure we will be looking at this in the small team.  

 

For example, when Becky presented the scorecard last week, there were a couple of times that she mentioned a possible limited ByLaws amendment in order to effect the policy and alleviate Board concerns re scope of Mission and associated risk.  It's worth discussing whether, in such cases, the Council should affirm the policy as recommended and ask the Board to act on the limited ByLaws amendments, assuming no objection from the Empowered Community on the point in each case.  (If we anticipate an Empowered Community objection process, that's a different story.)

 

It strikes me that much of the Board's commentary on the 38 items is grounded in risk management principles.

 

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024

 

 

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 2:32 PM DiBiase, Gregory via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:

Hi Councilors,

FYI- Forwarding comments on the Board’s SubPro Scorecard that our colleague Jeff sent to the Board as they may be helpful to Council’s consideration of the Board’s questions and concerns.

 

Thanks,

Greg

 

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:29 AM
To: Tripti.sinha@board.icann.org <Tripti.sinha@board.icann.org>; Becky Burr <becky.burr@board.icann.org>; avri.doria@board.icann.org <avri.doria@board.icann.org>
Cc: Sebastien Ducos <sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Subject: Comments on Board SubPro Scorecard

 

Tripti Sinha, Chair 

ICANN Board of Directors 

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles 

CA 90094-2536 

 

Dear Tripti, 

 

I understand that the ICANN Board of Directors recently sent to the Generic Names Supporting Organization some documents containing a “scorecard” related to issues/concerns with some of the Outcomes of the Final Report to the recent Policy Development Process on Subsequent Procedures for the Introduction of New gTLDs. 

 

Although I am personally technically on the GNSO Council as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC, I am not formally a member of the Council with respect to substantive issues such as responding to the ICANN Board comments on the SubPro PDP.  That said, as you may be aware, I was one of the Co-Chairs of the SubPro PDP Working Group and worked very closely with the entire Working Group on those Outcomes.  I was also formerly appointed as the GNSO Council Liaison to the SubPro PDP’s Operational Design Phase.  That appointment ended with the delivery of the Operational Design Assessment. 

 

As integrally involved in the SubPro PDP, I wanted to provide you and the ICANN Board with my personal comments on the Scorecard as I know discussions are ongoing with the Council.  I hope these comments help you in your desire to close out all remaining issues so that we can get the next round(s) launched as soon as possible.  I have been working intimately with these issues now for most of this past decade and my main interest is to see this move forward.  These comments are very much drafted in an informal outline manner though I can expand on any and all of them.   

 

I will be in Cancun for ICANN 76 and would be happy to discuss this further with you and with Becky, Avri and the rest of the ICANN Board if you have any questions. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 

 

Cc: Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Council Chair 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

+1.202.549.5079

 

 

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
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.