NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:53:22 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Hi Maria,

Thanks for the suggestions:

> 1  GAC role & new gTLDs

I think asking a question on this is a good idea.  We might want to put more meat on it.


On 8 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Maria Farrell wrote:

> 2  Whatever the correct term is for recognition/process of NCSG charter.

On this one, I am not sure what the Board will have to say on it.  It is still stuck in the Structural Improvements Committee.

Just the other day, I got an update on the status, which I did not have time yet to report on. Now is as good a time as any.

The acceptance of our charter has become contingent on acceptance of the two stage constituency process we suggested in our original charter where:

A. new constituencies go through a constituency stage for at least 6 months and then are considered for full status
B. in both stages, the approval or disapproval first occurs in the Stakeholder group executive committee which is then reviewed by the Board in its oversight role.

This constituency process was written up and put out for community review <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#newco-process-recognition>..  the review ended on 4 March.

The original idea had been that once this community review was completed, the Board would be able to vote on the constituency process and then on our charter.

But as it turns out the Board is not ready to do this at this meeting and the constituency process, as I understand it, has been, but set aside until after this meeting.  I think the SIC still intends to bring both the constituency issues and our charter up at the Board meeting after SF.

I do not know the exact reasons for delaying it.  My supposition has been twofold:

- the gTLD-GAC process is taking up most of their bandwidth.
- that there are those in the Board who, like Dany Younger, who commented, feel the Board should be the primary in making the decisions and that this should not be allowed to be a SG responsibility.

The last time we had this on our list of questions, the Board said something to the effect, this is stiull before the SIc, ask them.

So I am not against the question, but am also not sure how useful it will be.

a.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2