topics for Board/NCSG discussion

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

Great points, Bill - for the GAC discussion, perhaps we can focus on the Rec 6 and community objections issues? I also think your proposal for handling the CWG discussion - and to relate it to JAS and the broader question of developing country participation - is a good one, especially in light of the NCUC event on Friday at which a few Board members will be present and speaking.
 
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: William Drake <william.drake at GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH>
To:<NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 3/9/2011 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: topics for Board/NCSG discussion
Hi

Like KK & AD I'm interested in the GAC discussion, but there could be some redundancy with the Council's  meeting.   Can we identify some distinctive points and spin?

As a general matter the CWG thing is a bit of a red herring that other SGs have thrown out, control freakery. Can we ask the board if it'd consider a simple short declarative statement that it knows how to read a CWG report and is not confused and move on?  In any event, I personally would be very interested to hear how they read both the substance and process of the JAS group and what they're thinking viable supports might be.  Were that to bridge into a broader discussion of developing country participation, that'd be fine too.

Agree too best to leave the charter alone at this point, although any updating from SIC would be nice.

Cheers,

Bill






On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:19 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:



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 LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 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/20110309/47ab8a5f/attachment-0001.html>