I am so sorry I have to send my apology for today’s meeting. Best, Thomas Von: kurt kjpritz.com via Gnso-board-readiness-smallteam <gnso-board-readiness-smallteam@icann.org> Datum: Mittwoch, 26. Februar 2025 um 06:37 An: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc: kurt kjpritz.com via Gnso-board-readiness-smallteam <gnso-board-readiness-smallteam@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>, kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com> Betreff: [Gnso-board-readiness-smallteam] Re: Big idea for Wednesday meeting. Hi Caitlin (et.al.): Here’s my thinking… I agree that a pause and brief reassessment will be valuable after these first two sets of interviews: 1. The reassessment might lead to different questions or interview methodology. 2. However, I don’t think the reassessment would lead us to a path other than interviewing. I also think that the SubPro interviews will be markedly different than the EPDP interviews due to the wide-ranging scope, interminable PDP lifespan, and open membership model (among other things). Therefore the learnings of the EPDP interviews might not be applicable to SubPro. Therefore, I think getting a couple trial SubPro interviews under our belt might inform our teaching / reassessment process. In addition, I think we all want to get through this work and derive something meaningful from it as soon as possible. So I was thinking we’d fire up the next steps while we were finishing the previous ones. We’re lucky to have SubPro team members on the team so we can run these trials. I expect we will learn a lot that will help us even though we are not quite ready for the interviewers. So…. Let’s see what happens! Thx & regards, Kurt On 26 Feb 2025, at 4:52 am, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Kurt and all, Thank you for the idea. Staff was wondering if, instead of going directly to SubPro interviews, it might be preferable to finish up all interviews for EPDP Phase 1 and 2 and assess if this approach is the preferred way to continue before starting on a different PDP? If everyone thinks we should continue down the path we are on, we will support that. We thought, though, that an analysis of the results of Phase 1 and 2 would be valuable in possibly rethinking the approach (if necessary) to SubPro. Thanks, Caitlin From: "kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com/> via Gnso-board-readiness-smallteam" <gnso-board-readiness-smallteam@icann.org<mailto:gnso-board-readiness-smallteam@icann.org>> Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 at 8:16 PM To: Susan Payne via Gnso-board-readiness-smallteam <gnso-board-readiness-smallteam@icann.org<mailto:gnso-board-readiness-smallteam@icann.org>> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "kurt kjpritz.com<http://kjpritz.com/>" <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Subject: [Gnso-board-readiness-smallteam] Big idea for Wednesday meeting. Hi All: We have a Board Readiness meeting scheduled for Wednesday. My big idea is that we use the time to test interview Susan on the SubPro PDP. I have attached the information packet. Susan, the only homework is to spend ten minutes scanning the Pended/Rejected items to select a few items you want to talk about. The rest of the group might pick one each that they think is important. There are two reasons for my suggestion: 1. This is a complex area and I expect sort of a ‘fail’ in the first interview. It will be an important learning exercise for us. So let’s keep the prep time to a minimum, wing it, and see how it goes. 2. Justine cannot make this call and I think we’ll want the second test interview to be with her. So it is kind of good that she’ll be absent. (Going forward, we will have to find another time for our meetings as Justine cannot make this time on most weeks.) Plan B would be to discuss how to conduct these interviews for this PDP. You learn a lot by doing rather than planning so if Susan is up for it, let’s go with the big idea, with our expectations reasonably adjusted. Best regards, Kurt