Dear Jeff, Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify my points, as I believe you might have been interpreted my statements differently from what I intended. Regarding the first point, my reference to voting was not intended to suggest reaching a consensus, but rather to gather the team’s opinions in a more centralized manner. No consensus was mentioned in my message. Since feedback is often spread across chat, email, and documents, I believed consolidating viewpoints in one place could support the staff’s already excellent work with summaries and improve overall clarity. My second comment referred to a separate matter concerning the process for submitting issues for Council approval. My intention was simply to highlight the need for clearer wording and documentation for the issues that might be sent to the Council for approval, as the current process appeared to create some uncertainty among participants. I respect your perspective, however, I felt your response addressed different subtopics than those I intended to raise. It is possible to act fast and effectively. My intention was only to point out areas where additional structure and clarification in the current processes could be beneficial following the last meeting, despite already being familiar with the documentation. Thank you again and your feedback is noted. Best regards Nefertiti Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 12:54 AM To: Nefertiti Marquez <Nefertiti_Marquez@outlook.com>; gnso-spirt@icann.org <gnso-spirt@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: Potential improvements for consideration Thank you for your comments, Nefertiti, and for raising these points thoughtfully and constructively. I certainly understand the concerns you are highlighting, particularly around clarity of support, transparency in process, and ensuring that participants have an opportunity to provide feedback on materials before they are forwarded to the Council. At the same time, I do want to emphasize a few important aspects of this group and its role. First, while the Council itself operates through formal voting thresholds, this group, like most GNSO working groups, operates by consensus rather than formal voting or polling mechanisms. Under the GNSO Operating Procedures, it is Leadership’s responsibility to assess and document the level of consensus reached on a given issue. That does not require unanimity, nor does it require formal votes for every action or statement. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this group was intentionally designed to operate differently from a traditional policy development working group. We are not engaged in policy-making. If something requires policy development, we advise the GNSO of what is required and the GNSO takes it from there. Rather, we are supporting a live implementation process that may require the group to react quickly to issues as they arise. In practice, that means there may be situations where ICANN org, evaluators, applicants, or other participants require input or clarification within a matter of days, not weeks. As a result, we do not always have the luxury of extended procedural steps, lengthy review cycles, or ensuring that every participant is able to engage on every issue before the group moves forward. This is not intended to diminish anyone’s participation or viewpoints. To the contrary, all participants are encouraged to engage actively and raise concerns when they have them. But there may be occasions where meetings are convened on relatively short notice or where discussions proceed even if some members are unavailable due to other commitments. Frankly, there will likely be times when even I am unable to participate fully because of conflicting obligations. Our challenge as a group is therefore to strike the right balance between openness and inclusiveness on the one hand, and agility and responsiveness on the other. If we become overly procedural or bureaucratic, we risk undermining the very purpose for which this team was created. We also cannot afford to be dragged into other issues going on in the GNSO or elsewhere within ICANN. If there are issues that are out of our control, we should not be sidelined from doing our job. Thus, for example, if the GNSO has not figured out how it will handle Issue Alerts from the SPIRT, that should not mean we do not do our job and still give them our alerts. I am now borrowing that term from Cheryl. That said, I appreciate the spirit in which these suggestions were offered, and I am sure we will continue refining our processes as the group gains more operational experience. Best regards, Jeff Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff@jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: Nefertiti Marquez via Gnso-spirt <gnso-spirt@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 6:10 PM To: gnso-spirt@icann.org <gnso-spirt@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-spirt] Potential improvements for consideration Dear Team, Thank you for the recent meeting and the discussions that took place. I would like to raise a few points for consideration regarding potential improvements to certain mechanisms within the group, and I welcome any comments or feedback on these suggestions. 1. The Process of Support and Voting There is no doubt that the group may benefit from considering more structured methods of expressing support beyond chat messages or document comments, as these can later be misunderstood, particularly when several items are being addressed simultaneously. It could be beneficial for supportive comments to be collected in a single, clearly accessible place. Possible solutions might include “aye” voting or voting “on behalf of,” similar to the practices used within the Council, although this may prove challenging given the attendance observed so far. Another option could involve the use of polling mechanisms. At the same time, comments or objections should continue to be welcomed when openly expressed during meetings or directly within the documents. 2. Forwarding Team Issues to the Council Based on my observations, I believe there may be a need for a ratification process for documents before they are forwarded to the Council. The SPIRIT issues Consideration Process might therefore need a clarification expressed between the points 3 and 4 related to the process of document phrasing acceptance. Certain statements may require a final team review to ensure that the wording is appropriate and to avoid potential objections or misunderstandings. The Team should therefore have the opportunity to provide concrete feedback on the final documentation before it is submitted to the Council. While this may require additional time, it would help ensure a smoother process and reduce the likelihood of concerns and objections arising from the wording of the final document. My intentions are based solely on observations of the group dynamics and are offered in the spirit of helping the Team find common ground and supporting smooth cooperation. Any comments or suggestions are, of course, more than welcome. Best regards, Nefertiti Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>