topics for Board/NCSG discussion

Wed Mar 9 10:48:42 CET 2011

I also agree with these recommendations for our meeting with the Board. On the first issue, I am not sure whether we need to go into fleshing out particular issues from the GAC scorecard, but of course that will depend on how much time we have with the Board and how much time we want to dedicate on this topic. I like Mary's idea of discussing this more generally; we can perhaps inquire how the Board perceives the role of the SGs in this interaction between the Board and the GAC.
KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Law Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU
Sent: Τρίτη, 8 Μαρτίου 2011 10:20 μμ
To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion

Suggestions for Board/NCSG meeting:

(1) I agree that the GAC issue should be discussed. Those more familiar with the GAC scorecard and the Board's post-Brussels response would be better-placed than I to flesh out this particular topic, but one general theme could be how the Board regards AC "advice" versus GNSO recommendations.

(2) How about a discussion on the Board's view of cross-community working groups (CWGs) since that is a discussion going on in the GNSO? Particularly in view of some of the issues that have cropped up - procedural as well as more substantively - in the Rec 6 & JAS contexts.

On the SIC/Charter process - I don't think we need to discuss this with the Board at this meeting but continue to work with the SIC (thanks again for all the time and follow up, Avri!) As to the specific point about constituency approval, doesn't our draft charter have some language about appeal to the Board or the Board being able to review a negative SG decision on a constituency app?

Cheers
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
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
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 LTU.SE>

To:

<NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>

Date:

3/8/2011 4:57 PM

Subject:

Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion

Hi Maria,

Thanks for the suggestions:

> 1  GAC role & new gTLDs

I think asking a question on this is a good idea.  We might want to put more meat on it.

On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote:

> 2  Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter.

On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it.  It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee.

Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any.

The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where:

A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status
B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role.

This constituency process was written up and put out for community review <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#newco-process-recognition>..  the review ended on 4 March.

The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter.

But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting.  I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF.

I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it.  My supposition has been twofold:

- the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth.
- that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility.

The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them.

So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be.

a.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110309/fb177f9c/attachment-0001.html>