<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">Hello Councilors: </div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">I am writing regarding the agenda item "SubPro GGP,” and am seeking to provide some discussion points and an alternative approach to the<a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20220504/09360d33/SubProGGPInitiationRequest_4May2022-0001.docx" class="">
GGP Initiation Request </a>version posted in the agenda. (An Initiation Request is a prerequisite to launching a GGP.) </div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">Our previous discussions regarding this item have focused on applying the GNSO Guidance Procedure (GGP) toward fleshing out the details of the Applicant Support Program. </div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">It seems like a good idea to pull the Applicant Support work forward from the IRT given that designing that program is likely to be among the longest of the implementation tasks, and that
the SubPro report indicated the skillset necessary to complete the work is different from those normally comprised in an IRT. For reasons stated elsewhere, I think it makes sense to employ the GGP to pull that work forward.</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">However, the Initiation Request included in the agenda seems unnecessarily burdensome: </div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">
<ol class="x_MailOutline">
<li class="">The Initiation Request includes launching GGPs for four other gTLD program elements: the CPE Threshold, Quick Look Objection Process, Public Comment Role in Evaluations, and supporting of Freedom of Expression. I believe we should discuss whether
these rise to the level of invoking a GGP or are really just implementation work. In addition, efficiencies might be gained by tailoring individual GGPs rather than capturing them under one umbrella. </li><li class="">The Initiation Request calls for an overarching, 20-person-plus-10-alternates Steering Committee comprised of a representative community group to oversee the several proposed GGP efforts. This is likely to be an extended commitment on the part
of our depleted volunteer workforce. It seems to me that we are creating a parallel Council. Cannot we, as managers of the policy process, manage these important areas of policy development, and reserve volunteers’ valuable time for substantive work?</li><li class="">In the mean time, we can launch this first-ever GGP effort, keep it narrow to make it efficient, and learn from it. </li></ol>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I’ve attached an alternative GGP Initiation Request. It was rather hastily done in order to meet the documentation deadline so even if we agree to the gist, I anticipate amendments. </div>
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">Importantly, the alternative Initiation Request is not an approved RySG position. In an informal meeting of the stakeholder group, there was considerable feedback in support of this more
focused approach but, there was not time to form a fully-fleshed out opinion prior to the document deadline. This is only being offered only to inform and provide a counter-point for our discussion. The RySG will continue discussing the issue. (I understand
the issue of sending a doc, no matter how well caveated, makes it seem like an "official" position.)</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">Attached are the alternative Initiation Request and the original included in our agenda. </div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">I hope you find this helpful and in the constructive spirit in which it was meant. </div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">Best regards,</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">Kurt</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">
<div class="" style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space"></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>