Norbert, good suggestion.

--c.a.

On 06/12/2011 11:52 AM, nhklein wrote:
> Thanks, Avri, for the preparation.
> 
> I think it might be helpful to change the order: Make Item 1 the last
> one, and move 2 and 3 up.
> 
> Why do I think so? The Board may be focusing much on what is now Item 1,
> with 4 sub-items (Board-GAC is the Board's business), and the time of
> the meeting may be gone when you reach Item 2, where "we" (well, I think
> so) are more directly concerned and involved and affected. The the
> present Item 3 is also close to our concern to see that ICANN is
> faithful to all regions and situations of its membership.
> 
> And then only deal with what is now Item 1 - where the Board may have
> already its positions, and will explain and justify them for us.
> 
> Just some ideas,
> 
> 
> Norbert
> 
> =
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/12/2011 10:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> There have been no comments on the wording question so these are the
>> ones that I pan to send to the Board tomorrow morning EST.  Pleas let
>> me know of any last comments.
>>
>> Thanks
>> a.
>>
>>
>> ----
>>
>> On 27 May 2011, at 16:43, Diane Schroeder wrote:
>>
>>> If you could submit three topics/issues on which they would like the
>>> Board's view – the Board will also send three topics to the
>>> constituency on which they would like the constituency's view. 
>>> Please send these to me to coordinate.
>>
>> The NCSG took a poll from among 8 possible questions and came up with
>> a Stakeholder preference for following three issues as our
>> contribution to the planned conversation between the Board and the NCSG.
>>
>> 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.   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.
>>
>> 3. 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?
>>
>> The NCSG looks forward to receiving notice of the 3 issues the Board
>> will be contributing to the discussion.  We also look forward to our
>> meeting and send best wishes for everyones safe travel to Singapore.
>>
>> signed
> 
>