Dear Council Colleagues, I wanted to use some time tomorrow during our Informal Council Session to advance our conversation on the SubPro small team. Following the few discussions we had with the Board on what they are looking for, following the discussion we had a week ago prior to getting to Cancun on the very idea of a small team, but also following 3 days of intense discussions on the SubPro topic I wanted to propose a few principle: 1. We, the GNSO Council, are asked by the Board to review a number of topics. The responses we will return will be GNSO Council responses. The small team should be tasked with formulating GNSO Council responses. 2. We want to be able to move fast, but given the importance of the topic of SubPro to the entire Community, we want to be diligent, thoughtful and transparent. 3. There is a strong interest from other SOACs to participate in these discussions and to have a voice. It is legitimate and I think we need to be able to hear those. 4. The small team that is gathered should, by definition, remain small, and I think focussed on Councillors. 5. We have identified that given the technicity of a large number of topics at hand, the small team should be able to consult with Subject Matter Experts from within the Council and beyond. 6. The small team will need to integrate with its peers on the Board and from ICANN Org. We should have about 20-30 minutes on this during our discussions tomorrow. I would like to be able to come from it with a clear view of what this small team may be, to engage our counterparts and start working as early as possible. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3228593622] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Hi Sebastien, I am in agreement that the Small team should be made of councillors, listen to all SOACs (we have experience with this now from the DNS Abuse small team), consult with subject experts, integrate with peers from board and Org and move fast. It is achievable! Warmly, Tomslin On Mon, 13 Mar 2023, 18:00 Sebastien--- via council, <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Colleagues,
I wanted to use some time tomorrow during our Informal Council Session to advance our conversation on the SubPro small team.
Following the few discussions we had with the Board on what they are looking for, following the discussion we had a week ago prior to getting to Cancun on the very idea of a small team, but also following 3 days of intense discussions on the SubPro topic I wanted to propose a few principle:
1. We, the GNSO Council, are asked by the Board to review a number of topics. The responses we will return will be GNSO Council responses. The small team should be tasked with formulating GNSO Council responses. 2. We want to be able to move fast, but given the importance of the topic of SubPro to the entire Community, we want to be diligent, thoughtful and transparent. 3. There is a strong interest from other SOACs to participate in these discussions and to have a voice. It is legitimate and I think we need to be able to hear those. 4. The small team that is gathered should, by definition, remain small, and I think focussed on Councillors. 5. We have identified that given the technicity of a large number of topics at hand, the small team should be able to consult with Subject Matter Experts from within the Council and beyond. 6. The small team will need to integrate with its peers on the Board and from ICANN Org.
We should have about 20-30 minutes on this during our discussions tomorrow. I would like to be able to come from it with a clear view of what this small team may be, to engage our counterparts and start working as early as possible.
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
[image: signature_3228593622]
+33612284445
France & Australia
sebastien@registry.godaddy
_______________________________________________ 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.
Many thanks Sebastien. Comments for further discussion: 1. We had talked about a small team to triage the issues and make recommendations to the GNSO Council as to how to proceed. I'll call this the Triage Small Team. The summary below sounds as though we are thinking the small team will have broad community participation and will itself resolve issues with the Board's concerns. I am not sure that is possible in the MSM process. I think the small team must identify whether there are policy issues that must be addressed and make a recommendation to Council as to how to address the policy issues. Already there are complaints in the community about the small team process being "obscure" and not being part of an open policy process. Some of these surfaced in the current meetings in connection with the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generics and are well-founded. 2. I think it will in fact save time if the small team is just a Council subset at the start and does nothing but the triage exercise previously discussed and then quickly brings back its recommendations to the full Council regarding how to proceed and how to include other SOs and ACs in the dialogue at that point. If not handled in this manner, there is a significant risk of this exercise not yielding timely results before ICANN 77. In short, it will appear that the Small Team itself is making policy. 3. Personally, I would recommend convening the Triage Small Team in person for a day or two of discussion on the 38 items as soon as possible in a central geographic location (with hybrid participation ) to determine (A) if we can conclude that certain issues are actually implementation to be addressed by the IRT and (B) where the GNSO may want to stick by its policy recommendation and/or let the Board override that by 2/3 vote (per the ByLaws) if it is so inclined at ICANN 77. (FYI the foregoing Item Bwas a point made in the joint CPH Board meeting that was just held at ICANN 77.) In this regard, i don't think there is anything that says that the Board cannot modify a Final Report Recommendation itself due to lack of feasibility from an organizational feasibility point of view. Instead the Board has said "reconvene the Sub Pro WG and modify your Recommendations" but this is extremely inefficient and would cause great delay. I am concerned that the proposed Small Team structure below is essentially a reconvening of a policy-making team or PDP without actually calling it that. So I believe that Council should (1) stick with the Triage Small Team idea previously discussed (2) convene that Triage Small Team in person for a day or two to go through the 38 issues. This can be a hybrid meeting of course. Best for Avri and Becky to participate at this meeting. (3) require the Triage Small Team to report back with its analysis , summary of each issue, and recommendation for moving forward by the Motion deadline for the April GNSO Council meeting. Looking forward to tomorrow's discussion, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:00 PM Sebastien--- via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Colleagues,
I wanted to use some time tomorrow during our Informal Council Session to advance our conversation on the SubPro small team.
Following the few discussions we had with the Board on what they are looking for, following the discussion we had a week ago prior to getting to Cancun on the very idea of a small team, but also following 3 days of intense discussions on the SubPro topic I wanted to propose a few principle:
1. We, the GNSO Council, are asked by the Board to review a number of topics. The responses we will return will be GNSO Council responses. The small team should be tasked with formulating GNSO Council responses. 2. We want to be able to move fast, but given the importance of the topic of SubPro to the entire Community, we want to be diligent, thoughtful and transparent. 3. There is a strong interest from other SOACs to participate in these discussions and to have a voice. It is legitimate and I think we need to be able to hear those. 4. The small team that is gathered should, by definition, remain small, and I think focussed on Councillors. 5. We have identified that given the technicity of a large number of topics at hand, the small team should be able to consult with Subject Matter Experts from within the Council and beyond. 6. The small team will need to integrate with its peers on the Board and from ICANN Org.
We should have about 20-30 minutes on this during our discussions tomorrow. I would like to be able to come from it with a clear view of what this small team may be, to engage our counterparts and start working as early as possible.
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
[image: signature_3228593622]
+33612284445
France & Australia
sebastien@registry.godaddy
_______________________________________________ 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.
All, I strongly urge not using only councilors. You need to do work swiftly, but also you need to do it credibly. And in a manner that people will trust. But I have said this a million times (now 1,000,001 times). A small group of Councilors without a public mailing list acting in a non-fully transparent manner sounds like it will be faster in the short term, but MUCH longer in the long term. [cid:image001.png@01D95682.69C00770] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN via council Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:42 PM To: Sebastien@registry.godaddy Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Subject: Re: [council] SubPro Small Team Many thanks Sebastien. Comments for further discussion: 1. We had talked about a small team to triage the issues and make recommendations to the GNSO Council as to how to proceed. I'll call this the Triage Small Team. The summary below sounds as though we are thinking the small team will have broad community participation and will itself resolve issues with the Board's concerns. I am not sure that is possible in the MSM process. I think the small team must identify whether there are policy issues that must be addressed and make a recommendation to Council as to how to address the policy issues. Already there are complaints in the community about the small team process being "obscure" and not being part of an open policy process. Some of these surfaced in the current meetings in connection with the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generics and are well-founded. 2. I think it will in fact save time if the small team is just a Council subset at the start and does nothing but the triage exercise previously discussed and then quickly brings back its recommendations to the full Council regarding how to proceed and how to include other SOs and ACs in the dialogue at that point. If not handled in this manner, there is a significant risk of this exercise not yielding timely results before ICANN 77. In short, it will appear that the Small Team itself is making policy. 3. Personally, I would recommend convening the Triage Small Team in person for a day or two of discussion on the 38 items as soon as possible in a central geographic location (with hybrid participation ) to determine (A) if we can conclude that certain issues are actually implementation to be addressed by the IRT and (B) where the GNSO may want to stick by its policy recommendation and/or let the Board override that by 2/3 vote (per the ByLaws) if it is so inclined at ICANN 77. (FYI the foregoing Item Bwas a point made in the joint CPH Board meeting that was just held at ICANN 77.) In this regard, i don't think there is anything that says that the Board cannot modify a Final Report Recommendation itself due to lack of feasibility from an organizational feasibility point of view. Instead the Board has said "reconvene the Sub Pro WG and modify your Recommendations" but this is extremely inefficient and would cause great delay. I am concerned that the proposed Small Team structure below is essentially a reconvening of a policy-making team or PDP without actually calling it that. So I believe that Council should (1) stick with the Triage Small Team idea previously discussed (2) convene that Triage Small Team in person for a day or two to go through the 38 issues. This can be a hybrid meeting of course. Best for Avri and Becky to participate at this meeting. (3) require the Triage Small Team to report back with its analysis , summary of each issue, and recommendation for moving forward by the Motion deadline for the April GNSO Council meeting. Looking forward to tomorrow's discussion, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:00 PM Sebastien--- via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Colleagues, I wanted to use some time tomorrow during our Informal Council Session to advance our conversation on the SubPro small team. Following the few discussions we had with the Board on what they are looking for, following the discussion we had a week ago prior to getting to Cancun on the very idea of a small team, but also following 3 days of intense discussions on the SubPro topic I wanted to propose a few principle: 1. We, the GNSO Council, are asked by the Board to review a number of topics. The responses we will return will be GNSO Council responses. The small team should be tasked with formulating GNSO Council responses. 2. We want to be able to move fast, but given the importance of the topic of SubPro to the entire Community, we want to be diligent, thoughtful and transparent. 3. There is a strong interest from other SOACs to participate in these discussions and to have a voice. It is legitimate and I think we need to be able to hear those. 4. The small team that is gathered should, by definition, remain small, and I think focussed on Councillors. 5. We have identified that given the technicity of a large number of topics at hand, the small team should be able to consult with Subject Matter Experts from within the Council and beyond. 6. The small team will need to integrate with its peers on the Board and from ICANN Org. We should have about 20-30 minutes on this during our discussions tomorrow. I would like to be able to come from it with a clear view of what this small team may be, to engage our counterparts and start working as early as possible. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3228593622] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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.
Thanks Jeff. I should have said I look forward to the discussion in our Council informal session later today. Regarding small team transparency, I think Steve sent around a document earlier that is intended to cover this and here is the link for discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DqlivLabWSnYnoP76UnS-BXf_7wYYvoGUhc7FNoD... I also think your analysis of the 38 areas flagged by the Board will be extremely helpful. That document is attached again for reference. RE credibility, would you be happy with the role of SME to the small team? I think that is especially appropriate at the Triage stage that I am recommending we stick with at this point. Then in April that concept could be widened as needed to complete the work per recommendations to be made to the full Council by the Triage Small Team Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com. On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:36 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
All,
I strongly urge not using only councilors. You need to do work swiftly, but also you need to do it credibly. And in a manner that people will trust.
But I have said this a million times (now 1,000,001 times). A small group of Councilors without a public mailing list acting in a non-fully transparent manner sounds like it will be faster in the short term, but MUCH longer in the long term.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Anne ICANN via council *Sent:* Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:42 PM *To:* Sebastien@registry.godaddy *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG *Subject:* Re: [council] SubPro Small Team
Many thanks Sebastien. Comments for further discussion:
1. We had talked about a small team to triage the issues and make recommendations to the GNSO Council as to how to proceed. I'll call this the Triage Small Team. The summary below sounds as though we are thinking the small team will have broad community participation and will itself resolve issues with the Board's concerns. I am not sure that is possible in the MSM process. I think the small team must identify whether there are policy issues that must be addressed and make a recommendation to Council as to how to address the policy issues. Already there are complaints in the community about the small team process being "obscure" and not being part of an open policy process. Some of these surfaced in the current meetings in connection with the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generics and are well-founded.
2. I think it will in fact save time if the small team is just a Council subset at the start and does nothing but the triage exercise previously discussed and then quickly brings back its recommendations to the full Council regarding how to proceed and how to include other SOs and ACs in the dialogue at that point. If not handled in this manner, there is a significant risk of this exercise not yielding timely results before ICANN 77. In short, it will appear that the Small Team itself is making policy.
3. Personally, I would recommend convening the Triage Small Team in person for a day or two of discussion on the 38 items as soon as possible in a central geographic location (with hybrid participation ) to determine (A) if we can conclude that certain issues are actually implementation to be addressed by the IRT and (B) where the GNSO may want to stick by its policy recommendation and/or let the Board override that by 2/3 vote (per the ByLaws) if it is so inclined at ICANN 77. (FYI the foregoing Item Bwas a point made in the joint CPH Board meeting that was just held at ICANN 77.) In this regard, i don't think there is anything that says that the Board cannot modify a Final Report Recommendation itself due to lack of feasibility from an organizational feasibility point of view. Instead the Board has said "reconvene the Sub Pro WG and modify your Recommendations" but this is extremely inefficient and would cause great delay. I am concerned that the proposed Small Team structure below is essentially a reconvening of a policy-making team or PDP without actually calling it that.
So I believe that Council should
(1) stick with the Triage Small Team idea previously discussed
(2) convene that Triage Small Team in person for a day or two to go through the 38 issues. This can be a hybrid meeting of course. Best for Avri and Becky to participate at this meeting.
(3) require the Triage Small Team to report back with its analysis , summary of each issue, and recommendation for moving forward by the Motion deadline for the April GNSO Council meeting.
Looking forward to tomorrow's discussion,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:00 PM Sebastien--- via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Colleagues,
I wanted to use some time tomorrow during our Informal Council Session to advance our conversation on the SubPro small team.
Following the few discussions we had with the Board on what they are looking for, following the discussion we had a week ago prior to getting to Cancun on the very idea of a small team, but also following 3 days of intense discussions on the SubPro topic I wanted to propose a few principle:
1. We, the GNSO Council, are asked by the Board to review a number of topics. The responses we will return will be GNSO Council responses. The small team should be tasked with formulating GNSO Council responses. 2. We want to be able to move fast, but given the importance of the topic of SubPro to the entire Community, we want to be diligent, thoughtful and transparent. 3. There is a strong interest from other SOACs to participate in these discussions and to have a voice. It is legitimate and I think we need to be able to hear those. 4. The small team that is gathered should, by definition, remain small, and I think focussed on Councillors. 5. We have identified that given the technicity of a large number of topics at hand, the small team should be able to consult with Subject Matter Experts from within the Council and beyond. 6. The small team will need to integrate with its peers on the Board and from ICANN Org.
We should have about 20-30 minutes on this during our discussions tomorrow. I would like to be able to come from it with a clear view of what this small team may be, to engage our counterparts and start working as early as possible.
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
[image: signature_3228593622]
+33612284445
France & Australia
sebastien@registry.godaddy
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
Anne ICANN -
Jeff Neuman -
Sebastien＠registry.godaddy -
Tomslin Samme-Nlar