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 Orange Restricted From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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: * accepting the amendment as friendly, at which point the Council during the July monthly meeting will vote on the amended motion text * not accepting the amendment as friendly, at which point the Council will first vote on the proposed amendment. There will then be a second vote either on the motion text as originally submitted, or as amended, pending the outcome of the first vote. Thank you. Kind regards, Devan From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "kurt kjpritz.com via Gnso-secs" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Reply-To: "kurt kjpritz.com" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Date: Friday, July 15, 2022 at 12:12 PM To: Fouquart <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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 On Jul 13, 2022, at 3:46 AM, philippe.fouquart--- via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, Please find attached the GNSO Guidance Process associated with the motion circulated on Monday. This version is intended to incorporate comments made in The Hague, notably on focusing on applicant support and the flexibility bw a steering group and subteams. A couple of additional things that leadership would like to draw your attention to in case you'd have an opinion: * the need for the GNSO Liaison to the ODP to be a (non voting) member (that's under 5.) * the explicit acknowledgement that this group may deliver their results after the conclusion of the ODP or even the Board's vote. (under 7) Thanks. Regards, Philippe From: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 5:14 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: 'gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support Dear Councilors, Following our discussion in The Hague, please find attached the Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support submitted to the July 21st Council meeting. It will be updated with the link to the GGP within a few days. Regards, Philippe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. <SubProGGPInitiationRequest_13July2022.docx>_______________________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

Hi Kurt, Thanks for the offer. Yes, it would certainly help if you would give us an introduction of the alternative, once we have gone briefly through the initial proposal. Notably on the "Proposed WG mechanism/ Decision-making methodology" where the two differ the most. (I don't think there were significant changes to the scope where we seem to converge in The Hague, but you will correct this if I got it wrong) Thanks, Philippe Orange Restricted From: kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 5:45 PM To: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> Cc: Devan Reed <devan.reed@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [gnso-secs] Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support Hi Philippe: Thank you for the notice. Being a different sort of proposal, I agree it cannot be incorporated into the original and so cannot be accepted as "friendly," (though this alternative approach is offered in a friendly way). For our discussion, I'd like to give a very brief overview / introduction. Then, to test the proposal, councillors could prepare clarifying and other questions - which I (and others) might attempt to defend through our answers. Others, of course can contribute opinions or expand on the questions. [If the email and GGP Initiation aren't linked in the agenda, they can be found in this email chain.] If we don't get to a vote, we might get a sense of the Council position on approach in order to streamline the voting at the subsequent meeting. I hope you all find this to be in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. Best regards, Kurt On Jul 20, 2022, at 3:06 AM, philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com> wrote: 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 Orange Restricted From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Devan Reed via council Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 8:08 PM To: kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com> <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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: * accepting the amendment as friendly, at which point the Council during the July monthly meeting will vote on the amended motion text * not accepting the amendment as friendly, at which point the Council will first vote on the proposed amendment. There will then be a second vote either on the motion text as originally submitted, or as amended, pending the outcome of the first vote. Thank you. Kind regards, Devan From: Gnso-secs <gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com> via Gnso-secs" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Reply-To: "kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Date: Friday, July 15, 2022 at 12:12 PM To: Fouquart <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto: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 On Jul 13, 2022, at 3:46 AM, philippe.fouquart--- via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, Please find attached the GNSO Guidance Process associated with the motion circulated on Monday. This version is intended to incorporate comments made in The Hague, notably on focusing on applicant support and the flexibility bw a steering group and subteams. A couple of additional things that leadership would like to draw your attention to in case you'd have an opinion: * the need for the GNSO Liaison to the ODP to be a (non voting) member (that's under 5.) * the explicit acknowledgement that this group may deliver their results after the conclusion of the ODP or even the Board's vote. (under 7) Thanks. Regards, Philippe From: FOUQUART Philippe INNOV/NET Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 5:14 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: 'gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support Dear Councilors, Following our discussion in The Hague, please find attached the Motion for the Initiation of the GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support submitted to the July 21st Council meeting. It will be updated with the link to the GGP within a few days. Regards, Philippe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. <SubProGGPInitiationRequest_13July2022.docx>_______________________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.