Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting

[Brenden Kuerbis]

I agree this should be prioritized, then GAC-ICANN relationship discussion.


On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks, Avri. I think an extremely pressing issue the Board can actually
> provide action rather than simply opinion on is question 3: 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."
>
> I would really like to see this question put as a matter of priority.
>
> Many thanks, Maria
>
> On 7 June 2011 14:25, Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org>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
>>
>>
>>> (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/20110608/9276a0ea/attachment-0001.html>