Hi Robin
On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> Proposed Discussion Topics for Board & NCSG Meeting (March 13):
>
> 1. Role of ICANN to protect the multi-stakeholder model of governance and ensure civil society as an equal participants to business and governments. / Ensuring role of bottom-up policy development process
> (On a side note: from what I hear is happening at IGF lately, with the role of civil society diminishing against expanding business & governmental power in IGF decision making structures, ICANN could distinguish itself from IGF by more actively supporting participation from noncommercial users.)
If we are going to raise this concern once again, we might want to consider ways to fine tune it. The board undoubtedly hears a lot of 'hey pay attention to us, we have issues and feel put upon' from different groups, and we could just get the standard reply about of course we support the participation of civil society, etc. Can we identify any specific bounded problems they could take action to rectify?
>
> 2. How to "internationalize" ICANN's operations and perspectives
In another reply, Alain said, < increased participation by developing countries/emerging economies, in particular by the civil society there, reflects better the real challenge facing ICANN than indicated by the more generic "internationalization" term. Or, do some NCUC members mean something else by "internationalizing"? > There are multiple issues that get discussed under that rubric, e.g. not just participation of developing country actors, but also the composition and outlook of board/staff, whether ICANN wouldn't be better off located elsewhere and not under US law (recall the debates years ago about the ICRC model and host country agreements e.g. in Switzerland), geopolitical sensitivity and the broader relationship between the US government, ICANN, and the root, etc. But as discussed previously, efforts to bilaterally engage the board on such matters have never gone anywhere. I'm not opposed to saying too bad we want to talk about it anyway, but here again having specific action items seems to work better with them than attempting broader dialogues on strategic outlook and awareness. Per previous, I tend to think that these sorts of big picture questions would be better raised in the public forum, where other attendees might say amen and drill down to press for clarity, than in our bilateral meeting, where they're likely to be waived off and yield to awkward silence.
>
> 3. Reserved names in new gtlds - circumvention of policy development process & precedent
Definitely a hot issue, bounded and tractable
>
> 4. CEO search criteria / efforts
I think we and others have raised this before, and it's not obvious they're going to say much or alter the kind of person they're looking for.
>
>
> Proposed Discussion Topics for Public Forum (March 15):
>
> 1. LEA advocated policy changes in RAA / How LEAs fit in ICANN process
This might be better in the NCSG-board meeting…more specific and focused
>
> 2. Reserved names in new gtlds
>
> 3. Management of applicant support
Sure
On the ALAC list there's been discussion of asking them to talk about their obligations to the global public interest, a concept people seem to find curiously unfathomable in ICANN. This is the sort of big picture thing that could be good for the public forum, no? Why not echo the point?
Speaking of which, am I the only one to find the new website a bit distressing? It looks like some cheesy US business' site, sort of GoDaddyish marketing of names, rather than the site of a global policy making body with responsibilities to the international community. When Rod told me at a Council-board dinner in Nairobi that his main objective as CEO was "to make ICANN a $100 million company" he wasn't kidding, and this site redesign seems perfectly in tune with this notion that ICANN is in the first instance a business. Plus it's rather hard to find stuff now…
Bill
|
