+1 Nicolas On 07/06/2011 11:17 AM, Maria Farrell 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] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:57 PM, <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 <tel: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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > *To:* <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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. > > >