Page History

Agenda:

1) Welcome

2) Information sharing

...

Question from the Board:

“The ICANN Board would like to explore how to combine the efficiencies of an agile approach to problem solving, like the Council’s small teams, with the need for accountability and transparency, to make progress on policy conversations. When would such an approach be most appropriate and how can we ensure that it does not circumvent required steps in a policy development process?"

Questions from NCSG to the Board:

1. The GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI) Task Force has recommended that participants must disclose the identities of their clients or the employers they represent as a condition to participating in a working group. We believe this should be done without exception to enhance transparency and prevent group take-overs. What are the board's thoughts on this?
2. Has the Board reviewed the effectiveness of the implementation of ICANN's mandate during the COVID lockdown?  How much money was saved by not traveling, and what were the impacts on policy effectiveness, outreach and inclusion?  Should ICANN continue to travel to the extent that it does, given concern for our carbon footprint?  What do we gain, and what do we lose with this attempt at global outreach and are there better ways to meet with different regional populations and markets?
3. From NPOC: When will NPOC finally get its seat at NomCom? Could the rebalancing recommendation be taken further on how exactly the rebalancing could happen? If necessary, outsource another review team to figure it out, although we'd like to point out that CSG has one too many and NCSG one less than they should have. Since the community isn't able to reach consensus to abide by the recommendation that we got six years ago, the board should carry it through.
4. In her blog recapping the January workshop, Tripti suggested that the Board anticipates making incremental decisions leading up to the final decision on opening a new application window for new gTLDs'. Can you elaborate on what 'incremental decisions' are to be expected?
5. Applicant Support is a topic dear to the heart of NCSG. The SubPro ODA suggested that the applicant support program start 18 months prior to the anticipated opening of the application submission period. The ODA also offered 2 options for implementing SubPro outputs, where option 2 would only require 18 months of implementation. While the GGP continues its work, it seems impossible to incorporate the Applicant Support Program in time for the next round in the aggressive timeline of Option 2. We appreciate the org's effort in mitigating risks and enhancing efficiency by developing option 2, but the NCSG feels strongly that the next round will be unfair if we open it without a meaningful and genuinely effective applicant support program.
   
   
6. We have received questions from the Board about how to be agile and come up with new ways of working on issues to increase efficiency. However, we fear this desire to move things forward can damage the inclusive, diverse multistakeholder model that defines ICANN. Option 2 is a great example of this zeal for "agility" as opposed to fundamental fairness and concern for small organizations in this competitive environment. How does the Board plan to balance the desire to be agile without compromising the due process, inclusiveness, and diversity of the multistakeholder model in its deliberations, particularly with respect to the SubPro ODA?
7. What is the process for finding a new CEO for ICANN and at what stage are we with that?
8. What is ICANN doing to become carbon neutral and thus sustainable? Why isn't traveling to ICANN meetings by land (when possible) the preferred method of traveling? Especially in cases, where traveling by land would actually be the faster and more convenient option?
9. What is ICANN doing to better appreciate the numerous amount of time that volunteers contribute to ICANN?
10. How will ICANN align with the Global  Digital Compact in relation to Summit of the Future in 2024