Hello Everyone,

I have opted to comment here on the list rather than on the doodle poll as
it seems voter turnout is still low as of yet.

Regarding question 4 and specifically the question put forward between
parenthesis:

> 4.   Trademark Issues
> 
> Does the Board recognize that there's a large diffuse group of
non-trademark-holders and language-users who are fed up with the way TM
interests keep redrawing   > previously concluded issues?  How is the Board
working to finalize decisions and stick to them?
> 
> (should we add a note that say: We recognize that there is a candidate
constituency within the NCSG that supports the TM interests who are not fed
up with this   > activity.  Please use the comment area of the poll or the
list to comment.)

The whole purpose of the poll is to decide by majority what questions to put
forward to the ICANN BOD. We did not, as a stakeholder group, hold an
initial poll to determine whether there was consensus on the options
presented or not, nor was it suggested that this was a necessity at all, but
rather these options were suggestions presented by the members. In fact, I
can't see how we can be sure there is consensus on any of the suggested
questions by all the members of the NCSG. 

Should the question be selected by the poll, that will represent the
majority opinion of all who decided to participate. Although it is
understandable that the candidate constituency mentioned has reservations
regarding TM issues being included, and all opinions expressed on this list
should be respected equally; in my humble opinion, I believe that adding a
comment like the one suggested between parenthesis to the question will
undermine it greatly. This will not do justice for all who would like the
question answered. I hope that all who oppose TM issues being included show
understanding in this and consider the importance of a unified position by
the NCSG with the Board.

Thanks.

Amr

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 6:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting

Hi,

I neglected to give a cut off for this poll.

Deadline: 1600 UTC Friday 10 June.

This allows me to notify the list on Friday of the choices and allow the
weekend for discussion and adjustment of the text that is actually sent.  I
would like to be ready to have this sent to Board Secretariat before 9am
Monday MdR.

a.

On 9 Jun 2011, at 10:02, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The doodle poll can be found at:  http://www.doodle.com/dsfi2v2veqddg4qw
> 
> 
> Due to Doodle Poll field size restrictions I have only put the titles in
the poll, with the current full text here.  I recommend you use the comment
area on the poll or the list to suggest rewording.
> 
> Please try to only choose 3 or fewer.
> 
> 
> 1.   How does the increase role of the GAC affect the multistakeholder
balance.
> 
> - How does the Board weighs GAC advice in relation to  GNSO
recommendations, the CWG work and community comment on the implementation in
the by-laws mandated process.  
> - How well does the current GAC model mesh with the ICANN bottom-up,
multistakeholder policy development processes?  
> - Are there any specific areas of tension between the two, and if so how
can these be managed?  
> - What specific steps could be taken to promote better communication &
coordination, given GAC's professed constraints with respect to collective
and individual government participation in multistakeholder processes?  Can
the Board see government representatives becoming more integrated in this
model? If so, how?
> 
> 2.  Cross Community Working Groups
> 
> How does the Board read both the substance and process of Cross-Community
WGs and the JAS group in particular to understand what the Board is
thinking viable supports might be and how they regard the recommendations
for fee reductions.
> 
> 3.   New Constituency Process and the NCSG charter
> 
> While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting on
the approval of the standardized New  Constituency process recommended by
the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to understand what
issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the New Constituency
Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter.
> 
> 4.   Trademark Issues
> 
> Does the Board recognize that there's a large diffuse group of
non-trademark-holders and language-users who are fed up with the way TM
interests keep redrawing previously concluded issues?  How is the Board
working to finalize decisions and stick to them?
> 
> (should we add a note that say: We recognize that there is a candidate
constituency within the NCSG that supports the TM interests who are not fed
up with this activity.  Please use the comment area of the poll or the list
to comment.)
> 
> 5.   Board Staff Papers: Transparency and Accountability
> 
> When will the Board share staff papers with the community *while they are
relevant* to Board decisions, i.e. before the decisions are made, and can be
fact-checked, rather than months after?
> 
> 6.  DNS-CERT plans
> 
> What's the status of DNS-CERT? Has ICANN realized it's a bad idea to try
to control that?  Or are there plans still being made?  If so, what plans?
> 
> 7.   GNSO 'Improvements" and Restructuring
> 
> The likelihood of re-opening the bicameral GNSO Council setup, in view of
the numerous deadlocks we've seen.
> 
> 
> 8. ICANN engagement with developing and transitional countries
> 
> How can ICANN enhance its engagement with developing and transitional
countries?  What procedural/institutional improvements could be envisioned
to increase the effective participation of governments and other
stakeholders from these countries?  How can we increase the
development-sensitivity of ICANN policy outputs, including but not only with
respect to new gTLD applicant support?