I agree this should be prioritized, then GAC-ICANN relationship discussion. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Thanks, Avri. I think an extremely pressing issue the Board can actually > provide action rather than simply opinion on is question 3: 3. "While > understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting on the > approval of the standardized New Constituency process recommended by the > Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to understand what issues, > if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the New Constituency Process > and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter." > > I would really like to see this question put as a matter of priority. > > Many thanks, Maria > > On 7 June 2011 14:25, Brenden Kuerbis <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:57 PM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Avri. My vote would be for (1) the expanding role of GAC in >>> ICANN and implications arising therefrom; >>> >> >> >> I agree this would be a good topic of discussion. However, I would like >> the question to be a bit more provocative and open-ended. What I don't want >> to hear in reply is e.g., "the GAC's advice is an important part of our >> decision making, we take their advice seriously and balance it with other >> stakeholders and the policy making process, blah..." >> >> E.g., we could ask, "Is the current GAC model consistent with the ICANN >> bottom-up, multistakeholder policy making model? Can the Board see >> government representatives becoming more integrated in this model? If so, >> how?" >> >> My .02 >> >> >>> (2) the Board's view of how cross-community WGs could function; and (3) >>> the likelihood of re-opening the bicameral GNSO Council setup, in view of >>> the numerous deadlocks we've seen. >>> >> >> Can you elaborate a bit on 3), Mary? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Brenden >> >> >> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Mary >>> >>> >>> *Mary W S Wong* >>> *Professor of Law* >>> *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* >>> *Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP* >>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH >>> 03301 USA Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: >>> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on >>> the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: >>> http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> >>> *From: * Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> *To:* < >>> [log in to unmask]> *Date: * 6/6/2011 10:14 PM *Subject: >>> * Questions for The Board-NCSG meeting >>> Hi, >>> >>> As was pointed out in the email sent regarding the Board-NCSG meeting in >>> Singapore, and as mention on today's call, we need to propose 3 questions to >>> the Board. The Board will also propose 3 questions to us. >>> >>> I will give people another day or so to suggest topics. >>> >>> On Wednesday evening, I will put together a doodle pool of the choices >>> and over the course of Thursday, NCSG members will be invited to pick their >>> top choices. >>> >>> On Friday, I will write up the 3 top topics, send it to this list for 24 >>> hour review and then send it to the Board for their consideration over the >>> weekend. >>> >>> To start the list we have the 3 topics we picked last time when the >>> meeting was cancelled and two suggestions provided by Konstantinos: >>> >>> >>> 1. We would like to better understand how the Board weighs GAC advice in >>> relation to GNSO recommendations, the CWG work and community comment on the >>> implementation in the by-laws mandated process. Of special interest are >>> issues related to MAPO/Rec6 and Community Objections. >>> >>> 2. We would be very interested to hear how the the Board reads both the >>> substance and process of Cross-Community WGs and the JAS group in particular >>> to understand what the Board is thinking viable supports might be and how >>> they regard the recommendations for fee reductions. >>> >>> 3. While understanding that the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter is waiting >>> on the approval of the standardized New Constituency process recommended by >>> the Structural Improvements Committee, we would like to understand what >>> issues, if any, may be blocking Board approval of both the New Constituency >>> Process and the NCSG Stakeholder Group charter. >>> >>> 4. The role of the GAC within ICANN and how this might affect its >>> stakeholder groups. >>> (this may entail a re-write of #1) >>> >>> 5. Trademark issues. >>> (might be good to have more detail on this question) >>> >>> Please send you suggestions for inclusion in the doodle poll. Updates on >>> the questions from last time also requested. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> a. >>> >> >> >