Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting

[Desiree Miloshevic]

On 7 Jun 2011, at 14:25, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:57 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
> Thanks, Avri. My vote would be for (1) the expanding role of GAC in
> ICANN and implications arising therefrom;
>
>
> 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..."
>
> 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?"
>
> My .02


I do like your suggestion to see how current GAC model can be
improved, (e.g. how can GAC  get involved much earlier in any PDP
process)
but I would not ask if the current GAC model is consistent with the
ICANN bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy making model, because,
according to the bylaws, it is.
So I would not be provocative, but it's up to everyone to say what
they think works better.

OTOH, we know the answers... that GAC has a limited bandwidth and some
SO and WGs brief GAC better than others.
Perhaps  GAC's new secretariat is only one part of that improvement.

Desiree
--
>
> (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.
>
> Can you elaborate a bit on 3), Mary?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brenden
>
>
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
> (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >>>
> From:	Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> To:	<NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
> Date:	6/6/2011 10:14 PM
> Subject:	Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting
> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> I will give people another day or so to suggest topics.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> To start the list we have the 3 topics we picked last time when the
> meeting was cancelled and two suggestions provided by Konstantinos:
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 4. The role of the GAC within ICANN and how this might affect its
> stakeholder groups.
>     (this may entail a re-write of #1)
>
> 5.   Trademark issues.
>     (might be good to have more detail on this question)
>
> Please send you suggestions for inclusion in the doodle poll.
> Updates on the questions from last time also requested.
>
> Thanks
>
> a.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110607/c88902dd/attachment-0001.html>