AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions 1-7

[Alain Berranger]

Dear Wolfgang,

Excellent election platform!

ALAIN BERRANGER


2011/10/8 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> Hi everybody
>
> sorry for my late reply. Very busy schedule the last two weeks since Avri
> posted the seven questions. Here are my answers for you critical evaluation.
> I would be thankful for additional questions and comments.
>
> Thanks
>
> wolfgang.
>
>
> Question 1:
> How does one achieve greater participation from NCSG members. What is the
> responsibility of the Chair/council member in the effort to achieve greater
> participation.
>
> a. to bring good arguments from a non-commercial user perspective to the
> broader public debate to make it attractive for potential new members to
> join;
> b. to work closely with related constituencies within ICANN (in particular
> the At Large community) to encourage them, to become also engaged in NC
> issues
> c. to use outside events (IGF, academic and professional meetings, summer
> schools etc.) to speak about NC and to attract in particular member of the
> younger generation and woman also from developing countries to become
> active.
>
>
> Question 2:
> What is your view on the meaning of non commercial presence and activities
> in the GNSO?
>
> The majority of the two billion Internet users worldwide are non-commercial
> users. A lot of them takes it for granted that the Internet, the DNS and
> other Internet applications works. This creates a special responsibility and
> duty for the non-commercial constituency within ICANN. It has to proof its
> legitimacy to act on behalf of the individual non-commercial users and it is
> the duty of this constituency to guarantee that basic interests of
> individual Internet users (human rights, freedom of expression, privacy,
> access etc) with regard to the functioning of the DNS, allocation of IP
> addresses and management of Internet protocols and root servers are
> integrated in policies which are developed by ICANN.
>
>
> Question 3:
> What do you foresee as the most important issue for the NCSG during the
> next year. 2 years?
>
> a. the new gTLD Programm
> b. Whois and Privacy Issues
>
>
> Question 4:
> How do you see your role as a representative of the NCSG that elected you.
> In what way are you to be held accountable to the NCSG membership?
>
> It would be my duty to bring agreed positions of the members of the
> constituency to the council deliberations. It would be also my duty to
> report back periodically about the debates and my own role in the
> discussion. There should be a special "reporting back" agenda item in the
> NGSC constituency meetings in each ICANN meeting with Q&A.
>
>
> Question 5: What is your view on the issue of UDRP review? Are there
> respondents rights that need attention such as the length of time a
> respondent gets to respond.
>
> The UDRP needs a more compehensive and external review. It shoud become
> part of the general review under the AoC. There is a need not only to
> improve the efficiency of the existing UDRP, there is also a need to
> identify issues which have raised concerns, including the impression of a
> unbalanced trend in the decisions of the UDRP panels, its independence and
> neutrality, and the the diversity of UDRP service providers. This includes
> also an indepedent review whether "forum shopping" is a real threat. This
> seems in particular important with regard to potential dispute following the
> introduction of new gTLDs.
>
>
> Question 6:
> What are you views on the new gTLD program that is scheduled to begin
> accepting applications in Jan. 2012. What, if anything, should be changed in
> this round? What, if anything, should be changed in the next round?
>
>
> a. the plan as it is now outrolled for 2012 should get a chance to
> demonstrate its potential. We have to wait and see how many applications are
> coming and what results (and unintended side results) the evaluation process
> will produce. NCSG should insists that from the very first day of the
> process there should be an independent review process in place for each
> individual step which would guarantee the highest level of transparency.
> b. in the mid term there should be more differentiated conditions and
> criteria for specifc applicants (developing cuntries, public authorities,
> NGOs, civil society groups, cultural communities etc.) NSCG should start a
> discussion about categorization, including a categorie of nom-commercial
> gTLDs, which should be treated differentily from commercial gTLDs.
>
> Question 7:
> In terms of the RAA, what are you views on  modifying that that agreement.
>  How do you view the relationship betwee the Registrars and the ICANN
>  Community?
>
> There is a need for an ongoing review of the existing RAA, in particular
> with regard to new models under the vertical integration option. There is a
> need to avoid the emergence of dominant market power both on the registry
> and registrar level and it seems also important o overcame an imbalance in
> the regional distribution of registrars and registries. An indepedent review
> group should produce an annual report about market diversity both on the
> registrar and the registry level.
>
>
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111013/9f0fc747/attachment.html>