<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:57 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu">Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="margin:4px 4px 1px;font:10pt Segoe UI">
<div>Thanks, Avri. My vote would be for (1) the expanding role of GAC in ICANN and implications arising therefrom; </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree this would be a good topic of discussion. However, I would like the question to be a bit more provocative and open-ended. What I don't want to hear in reply is e.g., "the GAC's advice is an important part of our decision making, we take their advice seriously and balance it with other stakeholders and the policy making process, blah..."</div>
<div><br></div><div>E.g., we could ask, "Is the current GAC model consistent with the ICANN bottom-up, multistakeholder policy making model? Can the Board see government representatives becoming more integrated in this model? If so, how?" </div>
<div><br></div><div>My .02</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="margin:4px 4px 1px;font:10pt Segoe UI"><div>(2) the Board's view of how cross-community WGs could function; and (3) the likelihood of re-opening the bicameral GNSO Council setup, in view of the numerous deadlocks we've seen.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Can you elaborate a bit on 3), Mary?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Brenden</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="margin:4px 4px 1px;font:10pt Segoe UI">
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div>Mary<br><br></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><strong><font color="#800080">Mary W S Wong</font></strong></div>
<div><em>Professor of Law</em></div>
<div><em>Chair, Graduate IP Programs</em></div>
<div><em>Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP</em></div>
<address>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW</address>
<address>Two White Street</address>
<address>Concord, NH 03301</address>
<address>USA</address>
<address>Email: <a href="mailto:mary.wong@law.unh.edu" target="_blank">mary.wong@law.unh.edu</a></address>
<address>Phone: <a href="tel:1-603-513-5143" value="+16035135143" target="_blank">1-603-513-5143</a></address>
<address>Webpage: <a href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php" target="_blank">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php</a></address>
<address>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: <a href="http://ssrn.com/author=437584" target="_blank">http://ssrn.com/author=437584</a></address>>>> </div>
<table style="margin:0px 0px 0px 15px;font-size:1em" border="0" bgcolor="#f3f3f3">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div style="border-left:#050505 1px solid;padding-left:7px">
<table style="font:9pt Segoe UI" bgcolor="#f3f3f3">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td><strong>From: </strong></td>
<td>Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG" target="_blank">avri@ACM.ORG</a>></td></tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td><strong>To:</strong></td>
<td><<a href="mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu" target="_blank">NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu</a>></td></tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td><strong>Date: </strong></td>
<td>6/6/2011 10:14 PM</td></tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td><strong>Subject: </strong></td>
<td>Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting</td></tr></tbody></table><div><div></div><div class="h5">Hi,<br><br>As was pointed out in the email sent regarding the Board-NCSG meeting in Singapore, and as mention on today's call, we need to propose 3 questions to the Board. The Board will also propose 3 questions to us.<br>
<br>I will give people another day or so to suggest topics. <br><br>On Wednesday evening, I will put together a doodle pool of the choices and over the course of Thursday, NCSG members will be invited to pick their top choices.<br>
<br>On Friday, I will write up the 3 top topics, send it to this list for 24 hour review and then send it to the Board for their consideration over the weekend.<br><br>To start the list we have the 3 topics we picked last time when the meeting was cancelled and two suggestions provided by Konstantinos:<br>
<br><br>1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in relation to GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community comment on the implementation in the by-laws mandated process. Of special interest are issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections.<br>
<br>2. We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in particular to understand what the Board is thinking viable supports might be and how they regard the recommendations for fee reductions.<br>
<br>3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting on the approval of the standardized New Constituency process recommended by the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to understand what issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the New Constituency Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter.<br>
<br>4. The role of the GAC within ICANN and how this might affect its stakeholder groups.<br> (this may entail a re-write of #1)<br><br>5. Trademark issues. <br> (might be good to have more detail on this question)<br>
<br>Please send you suggestions for inclusion in the doodle poll. Updates on the questions from last time also requested.<br><br>Thanks<br><br>a.<br></div></div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
</blockquote></div><br>