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

Thu Feb 23 10:33:37 CET 2012

Another possible way of framing the question regarding the multistakeholder model and the potential threats against it by is through the current discussions concerning the Red Cross and the Olympic marks. As you all know, the GAC bypassed the GNSO and went straight to the Board to get protections for these organizations. This is a threat to the multistakeholder model that didn’t come from China or Russia (as various articles suggest lately) but within an internal ICANN body. Now, the DT that has been created is really struggling to find exactly what it should be doing and what is being discussed goes even beyond the applicant guidebook (to give you an example discussions are happening to protect these marks in something like 190 languages, despite the fact that ICANN didn’t produce a list of languages for the ‘originally reserved’ names.). The way I see it, it is requests like this one that also pose a great deal of threat to multistakeholder participation. Needless to say the expansion of rights that these organizations seek to get by using spaces, like ICANN, as their platform to do so.

Cheers

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior 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-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Πέμπτη, 23 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 8:14 πμ
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: Confirming Meeting with the Board - Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm

Hi

I agree entirely with Kerry that it is problematic that the big picture issues don't ('rarely' would be too kind) get discussed, at least not with us,  but that's how it is.  As Mary notes, the board has pretty consistently evinced disinterest in having such conversations when we've met; it would be very interesting to know whether this holds true for other SGs, ALAC, GAC…  For example, I believe I've mentioned here before that at Dakar and Singapore we put on the agenda a question about ICANN's strategic engagement with developing country governments.  We started the conversations by recalling that in various UN settings and beyond there have been years of battles over many such governments' strong criticisms of ICANN and their proposals to establish some sort of intergovernmental control over it, and then demurely suggested that maybe some sort of outreach/dialogue effort could be sensible.  But Steve's response was, "well, what's the problem?," and even those boardies who are active in UN settings and fully alive to the geopolitics did not really speak up.  There's no way to know whether the board and senior staff do get into such items privately—there's a board committee on Global Relationships, but when I've asked, several times, what it does and how the community can weigh in, got no replies—and have a plan beyond hiding behind the US government's skirt, but if so it's palpably not working.

I guess there are two choices.  We can insist, as a matter of principle, on trying to have conversations on issues they deem too sensitive or uninteresting to meaningfully discuss with us, e.g. internationalization, the growing role of governments, etc. Then we can sit back and enjoy the awkward semi-silence, and the fun parlor game of waiting to see how long it takes for them to start looking at their watches.  Or we can play it as they want and stick to pending internal issues like reserved names, thick WHOIS, etc.  As these usually have already been combed through in the board-GNSO meeting, Monday workshops, etc., we are fairly unlikely to hear much new, and indeed they usually say stuff like "we're here in listening mode," so we should be prepared to elaborate compelling positions they aren't already familiar with.  Maybe we should come out for strict trademark protections and WHOIS, just to see if they're listening?  In any event, the one thing we know from history not do is to ask them to endure any intra-NCSG squabbles, which they've made abundantly clear they have no interest in.

Bill

On Feb 23, 2012, at 2:03 AM, Kerry Brown wrote:

I’ve only been to a couple of ICANN meetings and mostly participated in the ccNSO. I realize that the big picture issues rarely get discussed but that is part of the problem. These types of discussions must happen in public. A first step to doing that is someone bringing up the big picture issues in a public forum. Most likely nothing will come of it when this happens. Most likely nothing will come of it the next few times the same issue comes up. Once the door is open though, people start thinking about it, eventually it is OK to talk about it, and something gets done. I think asking the question in a non-confrontational way and accepting whatever answer we get is a good first step in opening up this issue to be talked about elsewhere.

As an aside I will be at the Costa Rica meeting and would like to observe this particular meeting. I would like to get more involved with ICANN beyond the ccNSO. Is the public allowed to observe?

Kerry Brown

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>
Sent: February-22-12 4:42 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: Confirming Meeting with the Board - Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm

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 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:

Kerry Brown <kerry at KDBSYSTEMS.COM<mailto:kerry at KDBSYSTEMS.COM>>

To:

<NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu<mailto: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]<mailto:[mailto:nickolas.adam at gmail.com]>
Sent: February-22-12 4:06 PM
To: Kerry Brown
Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:diane.schroeder at icann.org>>
Date: February 22, 2012 12:27:58 PM PST
To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org<mailto: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/20120223/7e605983/attachment-0001.html>