Hi - comments in line below
Joy 

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amr
Elsadr
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2015 8:55 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG
session in Buenos Aires : Deadline 15th May

Hi,

Thanks for the rewrite James. I think this is very helpful. More inline:

On May 15, 2015, at 10:08 AM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> So I would think that Bill is along the right track here, lets not try and
ask open ended questions that allow response that don't answer the question.
> 
> In an attempt to get more specific heres my suggestions:
> 
> 	. Does the board have any plans for new/revised/additional naming
policy pr programs outside of the new gTLD program?

I'm still not exactly sure where we're going with this question. I would
like to point out that the publication of a final report of the GNSO policy
and implementation WG is imminent. I'm guessing it will be on the Council
agenda by the BA meeting. If the WG recommendations are adopted by the
Council and the Board, this will lead to significant changes in the PDP
Manual and Annex A of the ICANN by-laws that will limit to a great extent
what the ICANN board can do with gTLD policy without going through the GNSO.
I guess what I'm trying to say that any discussion on this topic may be moot
considering some of the ongoing work in the GNSO. Maybe including the policy
and implementation WG initial report recommendations within the context of
this topic might be helpful.

{snip} Joy: the point of this question is precisely to have an open ended
and unscripted conversation in response to this proposed new way of talking
with the Board - which as I understand it is supposedly for helping to
change the theatre of Board/Constituency public discussion from reiterations
of existing policy discussions or debate (or avoidance of these by the
Board) to lifting out of our current debates into a different conversation
about a medium term issue. So, as one example, the question is about what
thinking the Board might have done on naming policy beyond the new gTLD
programme - what trends or concerns might be on the horizon that we want to
raise with them form non-commercial stakeholder perspectives such as the
lessons learned in gTLD roll out and/or impacts that NCSG members see in
their respective parts of the globe etc. But if there is no interest in this
kind of question, no problem, it's just an option.

Cheers

Joy 
> 	. 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?

I prefer the earlier framing of this question having it begin with "Why",
not "Does". The easy answer to "Does" would be a No from the board members.
There have been indications that staff (perhaps not the board) are pushing
for IANA to remain within ICANN in perpetuity. The question should be framed
to ask the board to clear up the ambiguities and mixed messages. Doing this
does not need to be adversarial. I'm guessing this issue will probably come
up outside of the NCSG meeting with the board anyway, so it may be
unnecessary to bring it up at all, or perhaps revise the question based on
updates we hear in BA.

> 	. 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. (JG: Personal
suggested addition, 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?

An important question to add here might be a clarification on future actions
regarding the PICS. There is a need for a process to revise the PICS, their
enforcement and PIC Dispute Resolution Process. Ideally, this should go
through a GNSO PDP. Informal discussions have begun on this during and
post-Singapore. The discussions need to become more open and inclusive.

> 	. 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? (JG:
Bills suggestion below, my wording)

Agree on including this question, although it seems to me that it would help
if this was a question the GNSO Council also directed to the board. In S.
Crocker's letter to the Council, he indicated that CCWG recommendations
would be considered, but would not be the only determining factors
influencing the Board's decision. What other considerations is the Board
factoring in here. Instead of them doing this unilaterally, why don't they
just ask the CCWG to consider them in their deliberations?

Thanks.

Amr