+1 to all. Am more than agreed.
I think we need to be specific in our questions so as to get the exact
answers of expectation.
Regardd
On Jun 16, 2015 8:59 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:
>
>
> 1. CEO Succession
> 2. New gTLD's
> 3. USG Transition
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-06-14 9:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <[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
>>
>
>
|
