On 2 Mar 2012, at 09:40, Alain Berranger wrote:

> Yes Avri, but what new arguments have not been made?

But do we know that the Board has heard them?  Especially on the topic of going outside process to make policy from a top-down perspective.  This can only be discussed with the Board, all the other conversation on it is prelude.

> What do you think of points 1 and 2?

Good topics, but

With Bill, I think they have been done often, with the Board, so we better have a new approach to the topic.  I hope, for example, that it does not become yet another plea for more money and for special exceptions/allowances for travel etc - i think that stuff should have been in budget requests.  I think that if we are going to talk about outreach and inclusion of greater parts of Civil Society, we first have to convince people that trying to deal with ICANN is not a futile activity.

As for Internationalization, I think that topic is a broad one, I think that Bill made good point .  I, personally, care about how ICANN can evolve from being an American corporate entity to an International organization with host country agreements with several countries.  Of course this evolution requires genuine progress in ICANN 's compliance with the spirit of the AoC reviews - as they are agreed upon method of ICANN multistakeholder soft-oversight, - something that ICANN has yet to really accept and lived up to.  So at this point, I think this a long term project that needs to be built up to.



avri