Agree Bill and I like Joy's "question as to whether they have given any
consideration to any trends or new issues beyond the new gTLDs that
might arise in the next 3-5 years" - of course they could cop out and
say "well what do you think......" but it is perhaps worth asking it.
Matthew
On 6/16/2015 9:10 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
>
> Thanks Bill - one note below for you
> Joy
>
> On 17 June 2015 2:20:13 am William Drake <[log in to unmask]> 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.
> JL:Iadvocated for this one - it is really a very simple question and
> the Board's difficulty in understanding it may point more to checking
> that it is not somehow a trick question, which it isn't... It is
> simply a question as to whether they have given any considertaion to
> any trends or new issues beyond the new gTLDs that might arise in the
> next 3-5 years. The obvious answer is that if ICANN is bottom up
> community policy then it will be the community that takes new issues
> to the Board. This question is simply asking if the Board itself has
> been considering any
> > 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]>
> 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:
> > >
> > > CEO Succession
> > > New gTLD's
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987
|