Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting

[Milton L Mueller]

I prefer Brenden's approach. Desiree, the bylaws do not address the problem we are trying to discuss. The bylaws describe GAC's role in ICANN. For better or worse, the GAC model is one of a separate silo which makes policy independently of the GNSO and then competes with and threatens the Board to get its policies prioritized over the ones the community agreed on via the GNSO. This is in fact inconsistent with the bottom up, MS process. We don't do ourselves or ICANN any favors by refusing the openly state this and ask that something be done about it.

From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Desiree Miloshevic
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:11 PM
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting

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<mailto: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<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu>
Phone: 1-603-513-5143<tel: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<mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>>

To:

<NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto: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/20110607/7c4147f3/attachment-0001.html>