makes a lot of sense to me.

avri


On 16-Jun-15 10:20, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Vinciane’s message prompted me to go back and reread the thread in
> which we discussed the topics.  Based on prior experience, I’m
> inclined to think five questions is more than we’re going to be able
> to have meaningful exchanges on, so it might be worth paring things
> down; and that broadly framed questions can lead to uninspired
> responses and discussions.  
>
>   * Q 1 on naming policy programs outside of the new gTLD program: I
>     was with those who thought this is a bit broad, so I’m not
>     surprised by the Board’s request for clarification.  Would like to
>     hear from those who advocated it.
>   * Q2 on IANA: this will be discussed all week and in the Public
>     Forum, so do we need it again here?
>   * Q3 on fiduciary: again, would like to hear from the advocates what
>     we’re looking for here.
>   * Q4 on Public Interest Commitments: this seems like it offers
>     multiple angles for conversation, so I’d suggest it be the lead
>     question and main focus.  The Board didn’t ask for clarification
>     of this one.
>   * Q5 on auction proceeds: we will have discussed this the day prior
>     in the High Interest Topic session but it’ll have been SOACSGCRALO
>     chairs on stage, so seeking the Board’s reactions would be timely.
>     The Board didn’t ask for clarification of this one.
>
> So my suggestion would be to lead with 4, then do 5, and then maybe 3
> or 1 in whatever time is left…?
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
>> On Jun 16, 2015, at 2:59 AM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I got those from board asking for clarification about the topics we
>> proposed:
>>
>>   * Does the Board have any plans for new/revised/additional naming
>>     policy programs outside of the new gTLD program?  —> could you be
>>     more  specific? Are you thinking of/worrying about anything in
>>     particular?  
>>   * Does the Board feel that the IANA functions should remain within
>>     ICANN in perpetuity, if so should the community not have the
>>     right to periodically review the performance of IANA and, if
>>     required, seek bids from alternate providers? —> the feeling is
>>     that the dialog on this was clear but the Board is of course
>>     willing to discuss further should you feel the need to – you
>>     might want to provide additional info/questions?
>>   * When performing its work, what situations does the Board feel it
>>     is exercising its fiduciary responsibility, and does the Board
>>     take into account the community input when making such decisions;
>>     has the board received formal guidance on the boundaries of their
>>     fiduciary responsibility with regard to the IANA transition? —>
>>     Could you elaborate a bit more? What are you concerned about exactly?
>>
>>
>> please those who proposed those topics, can you elaborate and clarify
>> more.
>>
>> On other hand, the board planned those topics to be discussed
>> Thursday's public forum:
>>
>>  1. CEO Succession
>>  2. New gTLD's
>>  3. USG Transition
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2015-06-14 9:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     few weeks ago we discussed about topics we would like to ask
>>     ICANN board members about, during our NCSG-Board 1 hour session.
>>     We got those topic below and we got several interventions in the
>>     list.
>>
>>     since, we shared the topics earlier with the board, we don't
>>     necessarily need introduction for each during the session.
>>     However, we should prepare for the meeting and develop more
>>     questions and interventions. any NCSG member attending
>>      physically or remotely the session can intervene.
>>
>>     Please check the topics and share your thoughts, you can also ask
>>     questions if you would to get some clarifications to understand
>>     the background and the issues.
>>
>>       * Does the board have any plans for new/revised/additional
>>         naming policy pr programs outside of the new gTLD program?
>>       * Does the board feel that the IANA functions should remain
>>         within ICANN in perpetuity, if so should the community not
>>         have the right to periodically review the performance of the
>>         IANA and if required seek bids rom alternate providers?
>>       * When performing its work, what situations does the board feel
>>         it it exercising its fiduciary responsibility, and does the
>>         board take into account the community input when making such
>>         decisions., has the board received formal guidance on the
>>         boundaries if their fiduciary responsibility with regards to
>>         the IANA transition?
>>       * On the topic of ‘Public Interest Commitments’ how does the
>>         board feel that PICs interact with existing bottom up policy
>>         making at ICANN. Does the board feel that there may be a
>>         conflict between PICS and multistakeholder policy
>>         development. How does the board plan to enforce PICs,
>>         specifically in the case where there may not be community
>>         agreement over the actions contained in the PIC?When will the
>>         community be given the opportunity to review the PICs process
>>         in a bottom up manner?
>>       * On the topic of gTLD auction proceeds, does the board plan to
>>         accept the community suggestions via the CCWG current being
>>         chartered or will the board unilaterally decide the uses for
>>         the sequestered funds? In the case of a unilateral decision
>>         what will be the boards basis for the decision, and what
>>         inputs will the board be soliciting apart from the CCWG
>>         initiated by the GNSO
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>
>>     Rafik Dammak 
>>
>>     NCSG Chair
>>
>>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus