On 7 Jun 2011, at 14:25, Brenden Kuerbis 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 I do like your suggestion to see how current GAC model can be improved, (e.g. how can GAC get involved much earlier in any PDP process) but I would not ask if the current GAC model is consistent with the ICANN bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy making model, because, according to the bylaws, it is. So I would not be provocative, but it's up to everyone to say what they think works better. OTOH, we know the answers... that GAC has a limited bandwidth and some SO and WGs brief GAC better than others. Perhaps GAC's new secretariat is only one part of that improvement. Desiree -- > > (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. >