Fwd: Confirming Meeting with the Board - Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm

Thu Feb 23 01:42:13 CET 2012

It will be interesting to see how Steve (Crocker) manages these
meetings. In the past, the Board has seemed disinterested in discussing
some of these "big picture" (politically-charged?) issues, and has
preferred more focused discussions on substantive policy topics. They
have also tended to leave it to the SG to lead the discussion, which
means that it's not enough to simply frame a question or issue; we'll
need to have a short description or list of bullet points we want to
zoom in on within that question or issue.

For this topic, I think the chance of having a decent to good
discussion will be enhanced if we are able to frame the question
appropriately, and give perhaps a paragraph or short set of bullet
points on specific sub-questions members are interested in getting the
Board's view on. Even so, be prepared for a bunch of comments like
"we're not speaking on behalf of ICANN as this is not something the
Board has taken an official position on".

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 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: Kerry Brown <kerry at KDBSYSTEMS.COM>
To:<NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 2/22/2012 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: Confirming Meeting with the Board -
Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm

That might be a more politically correct way to ask the question. I
don’t know what the answer is or should be. I just know that ICANN
needs to start talking about the subject instead of dancing around it.
If we ignore the perception that the US controls the Internet someone
else will use that point to forcibly take control and ICANN will have no
input into how it is done. The subject needs to see the light of day. It
is not going away no matter how much we wish it would.

Kerry Brown

From: Nicolas Adam [mailto:nickolas.adam at gmail.com] 
Sent: February-22-12 4:06 PM
To: Kerry Brown
Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: Confirming Meeting with the Board -
Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm

IMO, yes ICANN need to take its distance from US jurisdiction. But an
inter-national jurisdiction is not a good idea.

ICANN's legitimacy hinge on users (writ large, commercial and non,
contracted and non) and it should definitely stress its non
inter-national foundations, as well as its non-international plans for
the future, early and often.

Asking the inter-national question just embarrass ICANN as an org, and
it doesn't help it strengthen its *global* foundation. 

May be I would ask if there are plans to address the perception that US
has final jurisdiction (implying it does not) in order to populate the
"authority/foundation by announcement" space in a manner that is most
conducive to ICANN's perrenity (as beholden to all its
stakeholders/communities)?

Nicolas

On 2/22/2012 4:39 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: 
One question I’d like to see is: “Are there any plans to make ICANN
more of an international organisation that is not beholden to or
restricted by the laws of any one country?” Your proposed topic possibly
hints at this. Why not just come out and ask it so it is on the table
for discussion. I don’t really expect we’d get a serious or full answer
but it would get the subject out there. If ICANN doesn’t start planning
to make a move toward being a truly international organisation it will
happen in an unplanned, possibly very destructive way whether we like it
or not. It’s something we all need to start talking about.

Kerry Brown

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Robin Gross
Sent: February-22-12 1:07 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: Confirming Meeting with the Board -
Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm

NCSG has the opportunity to meet with the ICANN Board of Directors in
Costa Rica.   We need to identify the 3 topics / questions that we are
most interested in discussing with the Board during our hour with them.

One possible topic I'd like to suggest is ICANN's importance in
defending the multi-stakeholder model of governance.  We've seen a lot
of pressure from governments recently to exert more control on the
Internet and on ICANN policymaking activities.  It might be good to
reiterate to the board that we support multi-stakeholderism in which
civil society is an equal participant to business and government in
policymaking and that ICANN can lead to defend this private-sector led
governance model.

What do others think?  We should come up a top 3 list to propose to the
board by 2 March.

Thank you,

Robin

Begin forwarded message:

From: Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder at icann.org>

Date: February 22, 2012 12:27:58 PM PST

To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>

Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>, David Olive
<david.olive at icann.org>

Subject: Confirming Meeting with the Board - Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm

Dear Robin  -  this will confirm that the Board will be meeting with
the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group on Tuesday 13 March from 3:30pm to
4:30pm.  The arrangements will be similar to those in Dakar – there will
be a head table and class room style with additional chair seating. 
Interpretation and scribing will be provided for the meeting.

It would be helpful if the Stakeholder Group could identify the three
topics/questions that they are most interested in discussing with the
Board and sending those to me by Friday 2 March.  I will endeavor to the
same on behalf of the Board.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards, 

Diane Schroeder

Director of Board Support

ICANN

4676 Admiralty Way,  Ste. 330

Marina del Rey, CA 90292

+1-310-823-9358 (main)

+1-310-301-5827 (direct)

+1-310-823-8649 (fax)

+1-562-644-2524 (mobile)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120222/51ad9a0e/attachment-0001.html>