[council] SubPro Small Team

Tue Mar 14 17:41:58 UTC 2023

Many thanks Sebastien.   Comments for further discussion:

1.  We had talked about a small team to triage the issues and make
recommendations to the GNSO Council as to how to proceed.  I'll call this
the Triage Small Team.   The summary below sounds as though we are thinking
the small team will have broad community participation and will itself
resolve issues with the Board's concerns.  I am not sure that is possible
in the MSM process.  I think the small team must identify whether there are
policy issues that must be addressed and make a recommendation to Council
as to how to address the policy issues.  Already there are complaints in
the community about the small team process being "obscure" and not being
part of an open policy process.  Some of these surfaced in the current
meetings in connection with the Facilitated Dialogue on Closed Generics and
are well-founded.

 2. I think it will in fact save time if the small team is just a Council
subset  at the start and does nothing but the triage exercise previously
discussed and then quickly brings back its recommendations to the full
Council regarding how to proceed and how to include other SOs and ACs in
the dialogue at that point.  If not handled in this manner, there is a
significant risk of this exercise not yielding timely results  before ICANN
77.  In short,  it will appear that the Small Team itself is making
policy.

3. Personally, I would recommend convening the Triage Small Team in person
for a day or two of discussion on the 38 items as soon as possible in a
central geographic location  (with hybrid participation )  to determine (A)
if we can conclude that certain issues are actually implementation to be
addressed by the IRT and (B) where the GNSO may want to stick by its policy
recommendation and/or  let the Board override that by 2/3 vote  (per the
ByLaws) if it is so inclined at ICANN 77.  (FYI the foregoing Item Bwas a
point made in the joint CPH Board meeting that was just held at ICANN 77.)
  In this regard, i don't think there is anything that says that the Board
cannot modify a Final Report Recommendation itself due to lack of
feasibility from an organizational feasibility point of view.  Instead the
Board has said "reconvene the Sub Pro WG and modify your Recommendations"
but this is extremely inefficient and would cause great delay.  I am
concerned that the proposed Small Team structure below is essentially a
reconvening of a policy-making team  or PDP without actually calling it
that.

So I believe that Council should
(1) stick with the Triage Small Team idea previously discussed
(2) convene that Triage Small Team in person for a day or two to go through
the 38 issues.  This can be a hybrid meeting of course.  Best for Avri and
Becky to participate at this meeting.
(3) require the Triage Small Team to report back with its analysis ,
summary of each issue, and recommendation for moving forward by the Motion
deadline for the April GNSO Council meeting.

Looking forward to tomorrow's discussion,
Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso at gmail.com

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:00 PM Sebastien--- via council <
council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Council Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I wanted to use some time tomorrow during our Informal Council Session to
> advance our conversation on the SubPro small team.
>
> Following the few discussions we had with the Board on what they are
> looking for, following the discussion we had a week ago prior to getting to
> Cancun on the very idea of a small team, but also following 3 days of
> intense discussions on the SubPro topic I wanted to propose a few principle:
>
>
>
>    1. We, the GNSO Council, are asked by the Board to review a number of
>    topics. The responses we will return will be GNSO Council responses. The
>    small team should be tasked with formulating GNSO Council responses.
>    2. We want to be able to move fast, but given the importance of the
>    topic of SubPro to the entire Community, we want to be diligent, thoughtful
>    and transparent.
>    3. There is a strong interest from other SOACs to participate in these
>    discussions and to have a voice. It is legitimate and I think we need to be
>    able to hear those.
>    4. The small team that is gathered should, by definition, remain
>    small, and I think focussed on Councillors.
>    5. We have identified that given the technicity of a large number of
>    topics at hand, the small team should be able to consult with Subject
>    Matter Experts from within the Council and beyond.
>    6. The small team will need to integrate with its peers on the Board
>    and from ICANN Org.
>
>
>
> We should have about 20-30 minutes on this during our discussions
> tomorrow. I would like to be able to come from it with a clear view of what
> this small team may be, to engage our counterparts and start working as
> early as possible.
>
>
>
> Kindly,
>
>
>
>
>
> *Sebastien Ducos*
>
> GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
>
> [image: signature_3228593622]
>
> +33612284445
>
> France & Australia
>
> sebastien at registry.godaddy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230314/0ab76274/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44606 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230314/0ab76274/image001-0001.png>