El jun 16, 2015, a las 8:20, William Drake <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escribió:



  *   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.

MM: Me, too. I don’t think it leads to anything useful, frankly.



  *   Q2 on IANA: this will be discussed all week and in the Public Forum, so do we need it again here?

MM: The question asked has already been answered by the CWG proposal. A better question might be: “Is it true Fadi that you resigned from CEO position because of delays in the transition process?” Heh. Not a serious suggestion.



  *   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.

MM: I suggest that this discussion be linked to the CCWG work on Accountability. Specifically, the revised mission statement has proposed a narrower and more bounded mission and scope, and the use of the term “public interest” in the current mission has come under attack from several quarters. Could we ask the board something like:

“There is widespread support in the community for revising ICANN’s mission and scope to preventing it from regulating content or services by means of its control of domain names. Do you think PICs provide an end-run around those limitations?”



  *   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…?



MM: I would agree if 4 is expanded as I proposed above.