I STRONGLY support asking this.

I would avoid mentioning specific contracted parties, however - unless they force you to by asking for a specific example. Raising a specific example con get you involved in specific policy issues on the merits, rather than dealing with what is the real crux of the question, which is how PICs can be used to contradict or set aside the GNSO policy process and consensus policies. Stay focused on the principle, don't get into a IGO names debate or a copyright debate. 

Great suggestion, Kathy

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Kathy Kleiman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 11:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ICANN Copenhagen, questions from and to the Board
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> I think we should also consider asking the Board about the PICs (Public
> Interest Commitments) submitted by the New gTLD Registries. In some
> important cases, these PICs contradict, set aside and even bypass Consensus
> policy a) made or b) currently being made. So Minds + Machines, for
> example, is blocking all IGO names at the second level of its New gTLDs --
> although there is a full-blown GNSO Policy Development Process WG looking
> at that very issue!
> 
> I think we should be asking the Board about these PICs and raising concerns.
> 
> Best, Kathy
> 
> On 3/7/2017 9:43 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> 
> > Sounds like we'll only have one question for the board...
> >
> > Kathy, can you have publishable phrasing for it today?
> >
> > Anybody else, if you have other questions to suggest, please let us
> > know TODAY. Thanks.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> >
> > On Mar 02 10:55, Kathy Kleiman ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> >
> >> Tapani,
> >>
> >> These are questions for the Board/NCSG Meeting, right?   I think we
> >> should be asking questions about Compliance -- and continue our
> >> efforts to seek fairer compliance actions for registrants, compliance
> >> actions that fall within the scope of ICANN, and compliance actions
> >> responsive to the needs of the whole community (not a subset).
> >>
> >> This is definitely not the right phrasing yet, but we can certain
> >> provide it. I know Ayden and Raoul have been thinking about
> >> compliance. Would anyone else like to help craft a question for the
> >> board? (Please respond privately.)
> >>
> >> Best, Kathy
> >>
> >> On 3/2/2017 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> As time is running short, I'll take the liberty of hijacking
> >>> Farzaneh's message from NCUC list - thank you.
> >>>
> >>> So, questions below for all NCSG members. The deadline is rather
> >>> impossible, but I don't expect sky to fall if we extend it by the
> >>> weekend. Nonetheless quick comments would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Tapani
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:57AM -0500, farzaneh badii
> ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> NCUC members,
> >>>>
> >>>> Board has requested to answer the below questions for its meeting
> >>>> with the stakeholder groups ( I think NCSG):
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. To what degree is your membership actively participating in
> >>>> CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2?  What could the Board or ICANN
> >>>> organization do to facilitate participation and timely completion
> >>>> of this work?
> >>>> 2. What policy/advice issues are top priorities for your group?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> They also want to know what we want to ask them during NCSG/Board
> meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>> This meeting will take place at the NCSG level but I took the
> >>>> liberty to ask you and trigger the discussion. If discussions take
> >>>> place on NCSG about these questions and our questions to the Board,
> >>>> then we shall transfer our input to that thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> Board has generously given us a deadline of 3 March for submitting
> >>>> our questions!
> >>>>
> >>>> Best
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Farzaneh