Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting

Wed Jun 8 22:19:22 CEST 2011

Hi,

On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:34 PM, Desiree Miloshevic wrote:

> If we are asking the Board to tell us if they can see government's reps better integrated in the MS model, then NCSG should also have a concrete suggestion or two?

There were a couple concrete suggestions in SF, e.g. establishing a joint GNSO/GAC group to consider options for earlier/better communication & coordination, establishing liaisons between GAC and GNSO SGs, etc.  But with bandwidth scarce and energies focused on scorecarding and whether or not ICANN should be planning a launch party in Singapore, there's not been much focused discussion of follow up.  Maybe it can reboot in the run up to Dakar, and I'd certainly be interested in working on fostering NC/GAC dialogue in that context, but GAC's persistent emphasizing of its operational constraints with respect to participating in joint work and its board-centric orientation are obviously significant hurdles to overcome.

In any event, this discussion about word smithing questions has pointed to some interesting issues here that merit further discussion here and in Singapore.   

FWIW at this late stage, my 3 preferences on questions would be:

*To rework Brenden's suggestion slightly, from "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?" to something like "How well does the current GAC model mesh with the ICANN bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes?  Are there any specific areas of tension between the two, and if so how can these be managed?  What specific steps could be taken to promote better communication & coordination, given GAC's professed constraints with respect to collective and individual government participation in multistakeholder processes?"

*"How can ICANN enhance its engagement with developing and transitional countries?  What procedural/institutional improvements could be envisioned to increase the effective participation of governments and other stakeholders from these countries?  How can we increase the development-sensitivity of ICANN policy outputs, including but not only with respect to new gTLD applicant support?"

*Mary's "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."

Personally, I don't see the point of us spending our limited question time with the board on community working groups when it's clear the GNSO Council will be probing this issue with them anyway.  Why not just weigh in in that discussion, particularly since it's likely that what they're going to hear from other SGs reps will be rather different, both on the general matter and on JAS, and it'd be good to underscore that constituencies/SGs are not all of one mind on this.

Three cents,

Bill

> 
> 
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 22:25, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> 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> 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/20110608/b2d99027/attachment-0001.html>