[ncsg-policy] NCSG mtg with the ICANN Board.

[Brenden Kuerbis]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ltu.se> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Not so say that the NCSG charter is not a critical and pressing issue. anf
> the NCSG EC will have a discussion with the SIC on that one later in the
> week as well.
>
> But are there are no substantive issues/concerns that we want to express as
> well?  e.g the cost on new GTLDS, any IRT issues, the question of multiple
> paths to confusion on the VI issue ...
>
> I think at some point we need to talk about more then just the charter
> issue.
>
>

How about (need to expand on #2, perhaps shift the order to focus on
charter?):

1. NCSG charter
1a. NCSG has initiated its Exec Comm, putting in place necessary mechanisms
(e.g., membership criteria, working drafts of NCSG-EC procedures, voting
procedures) to support NCSG
1b. NCUC continues to grow in numbers and interests, recent interest by
grassroots consumer protection advocates in NCSG, encouraging supporters of
Consumer Constituency petition to join NCSG
1c. Noncommercial interests are eager to move forward with a Board
_ratified_ NCSG charter. NCUC submitted detailed letter in October(?)
outlining arguments for supporting NCSG, where does the Board (specifically
the SIC) stand on approving? What questions can we answer to expedite
process?

2. New gTLDs/EOI
2a. NCSG councilors Bill Drake and Rafik Dammak eloquently raised in the
GNSO working session how the complexity (and expense) of the new gTLD
process is detrimental to potential applicants from developing regions.

3. Parity in ICANN policy-making process w/r/t inclusion of noncommercial
interests
3a. Unfortunately, we have yet another instance where ad hoc creation of an
advisory group (that has potential to influence policy) results in draft
report which fails to include noncommercial interests, much less address
potential policy conflict. In this case, the zone file access (ZFA) advisory
group failed to adequately consider in its draft report how a uniform,
third-party ZFA contract might impact and conflict with the variance in
national privacy laws concerning registrant data.  If ICANN's intent is to
make consensus policy it is imperative that its processes, including
"advisory groups," include all perspectives - from the start.
3b. On a positive note!  Thx for providing the opportunity to discuss
noncommercial interests with the Board. Having met in Seoul and now in
Nairobi, we believe these regular f-2-f interactions benefit both the Board
and noncommercial interests and hope they will become a regularly
scheduled occurrence going forward.




> a.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100306/218747f2/attachment.html>