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

[Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU]

In Dakar(I think it was), it didn't help that a new Board member from a
developing country said it wasn't a problem either :(

 
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: William Drake <william.drake at UZH.CH>
To:<NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Date: 2/23/2012 3:18 AM
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
Sent: February-22-12 4:42 PM
To: 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 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/20120223/724fa119/attachment-0001.html>