Below is an email from John Emery, who has done a considerable amount of good work assembling an information packet for SubPro interviewees. If you have time, please review it (and suggest edits). I’d ask that you pay particular attention to the section describing the rejected recommendations. I think this needs to present succinctly in some way, so in addition to what John as done my thoughts (randomly put) are:

We could present a table that is in extreme shorthand but provides a sufficient memory jog to start a conversation. I’ve attached a sample.
In lieu of the idea just above, I think the Council small team put together a chart at the outset of their work that grouped the 38 rejected and pended recommendation. Can someone who participated on that point us to that (if it exists)?
I think we should present all 38 recommendations that were not approved, Several of the ones later approved after adjustment provide good lessons in the importance of wording.

With regard to the questions being asked to the interviewees on SubPro, we should emphasise the areas where the Board essentially rejected recommendations in the initial report, but the SubPro team went ahead with them in the final report anyway. We should dive in to that area and see what lessons can be taken.

Let’s schedule Stephanie for Jan 24 7AM Brisbane time whenever that is (Thursday the 23rd for most of you). Who can make it? Check the Doodle poll.
Janis Karklins: I sent him a second reminder today.
Laureen Kapin: I sent her an invitation to LKAPIN@ftc.gov. Does anyone know if that is the correct address? Can someone volunteer to bug her?
I recently sent invitations to Alan Woods (Alan.woods@cleandns.email) and Brian King (brian.king@clarivate.com). Can someone verify those are the correct email addresses and, if we do not hear from them by our meeting, volunteer to bug them?

Select SubPro interviewees (it’d be great if staff could present a list in attendance order)
Ideas for speeding up the interviewing process.

I think that is it.

I welcome comments or information sent prior to the meeting.

Best regards to all,

Kurt

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Emery <john.emery@icann.org>

Subject: Draft SubPro Interviewee Info Packet

Date: 11 January 2025 at 4:40:14 am AEST

To: kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com>

Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>, Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>

Hello Kurt,

Staff has created a draft interviewee information packet for Sub Pro. Obviously, it is somewhat longer given the non-adopted recommendations of SubPro, but we have attempted to summarize up front and include as many links to reference as possible. Furthermore, we moved the interview questions earlier to allow us to include all of the non-adopted recommendation list, which you can instruct them to review and choose from as not all could be discussed. We have given you editing access to this document, so please edit as you see fit. Once you are satisfied with your changes, we can get it to the small team for comment.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tVtFb4It2l0vfjetuD-ql4QF0OiG2dwws44vyUHyrPY/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you,

John R. Emery, Ph.D.

Policy Development Support Senior Specialist

Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

www.icann.org