Just a small first remark, I, Rudi Vansnick, was also present at the NCSG PC meeting, not that this is the most important issue. And Rafik’s name is also missing.
Rudi Vansnick
Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
www.npoc.org
[log in to unmask]
Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
Op 13-okt.-2014, om 07:47 heeft Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]> het volgende geschreven:
> Hi all,
>
> Many thanks for the great turnout and discussion yesterday. As the GNSO Council agenda was pretty light, we had a useful and informative discussion on some broader topics, which I personally found very helpful - so thanks to everyone.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
> NCSG PC
>
> 12 Oct 2014
>
>
> Participants:
>
> Joy Liddicoat
>
> Amr El Sadr
>
> Olevie Kouami
>
> Carolos Affonso
>
> Wendy Seltzer
>
> Carlos Guttierez
>
> Niels ten Oever
>
> Lori Schulman
>
> Sam LanFranco
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> Maria Farrell
>
> Avri Doria
>
> Bill Drake
>
> David Cake
>
> Robin Gross
>
> Milton Mueller
>
> Magaly Pazello
>
> Klaus Stoll
>
>
> 1 Prep for High Interest Topic SO/AC meeting
>
> a. Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN policy-making
>
> i. Keep the GAC role in the discussion, even though the agenda has been changed to focus less on the GAC
>
> ii. Provide input to the bylaw change public comment period on changing Board voting threshold for rejecting GAC advice
>
> iii. Remind people that GAC advice has a much shallower process than GNSO policy
>
> iv. Find an opportunity to mention the accepted need for the Human Rights Advisory Committee
>
> b. New gTLDs, 2nd round
>
> i. Evaluate the first round before the second one begins (need clarity on where that point is)
>
> ii. Developing country support and outreach to developing countries – we can say diplomatically ‘we told you so’ as we were not listened to on these topics and the consequences are clear
>
> iii. What are the criteria for success or failure of the round (and programme does not equal success or failure of individual TLDs)? NCSG believes narrowly economic criteria are far too narrow and we will push to develop evaluation criteria that go wider, including the non-commercial and often positive economic implications of commercial TLDs
>
> iv. Evaluation should not just focus on who got names or what TLDs there are, and also look at who did NOT apply and why not
>
> v. The programme was overly concerned to avoid gaming, which happened anyway, and not concerned with many non-commercial issues
>
> vi. The role of the Independent Experts needs to be looked at sharply in the review – they brought little useful or new to the evaluation of specific TLDs
>
> vii. We should start evaluating the issues right now, i.e. the problems that have arisen, rather than wait to the end of the process to start looking at them
>
> viii. We should propose a Programme Evaluation Framework, i.e. a logic model that looks at what the objectives of the programme were (or should have been) and measuring it up against them.
>
> 2 GNSO Council agenda prep
>
> a. Voting on resolutions on IRTP(D) and to adopt the charter of the Cross Community Working Group are expected to be largely positive.
>
> i. Avri took part in the various IRTP working groups and endorsed the work.
>
> ii. Bill, Avri and David gave background of the CCWG charter process and what it might be expected to achieve, and encouraged Council members to vote in favour of it.
>
> 3 Maria said as she is finishing her term as a Council member, she will shortly be stepping down as Chair of the NCSG PC and so we will need to start a process to elect a new chair. More on that anon.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
|
