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