Norbert, good suggestion. --c.a. On 06/12/2011 11:52 AM, nhklein wrote: > Thanks, Avri, for the preparation. > > I think it might be helpful to change the order: Make Item 1 the last > one, and move 2 and 3 up. > > Why do I think so? The Board may be focusing much on what is now Item 1, > with 4 sub-items (Board-GAC is the Board's business), and the time of > the meeting may be gone when you reach Item 2, where "we" (well, I think > so) are more directly concerned and involved and affected. The the > present Item 3 is also close to our concern to see that ICANN is > faithful to all regions and situations of its membership. > > And then only deal with what is now Item 1 - where the Board may have > already its positions, and will explain and justify them for us. > > Just some ideas, > > > Norbert > > = > > > > On 06/12/2011 10:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> There have been no comments on the wording question so these are the >> ones that I pan to send to the Board tomorrow morning EST. Pleas let >> me know of any last comments. >> >> Thanks >> a. >> >> >> ---- >> >> On 27 May 2011, at 16:43, Diane Schroeder wrote: >> >>> If you could submit three topics/issues on which they would like the >>> Board's view – the Board will also send three topics to the >>> constituency on which they would like the constituency's view. >>> Please send these to me to coordinate. >> >> The NCSG took a poll from among 8 possible questions and came up with >> a Stakeholder preference for following three issues as our >> contribution to the planned conversation between the Board and the NCSG. >> >> 1. How does the increase role of the GAC affect the multistakeholder >> balance. >> >> - How does 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. >> - How well does the current GAC model mesh with the ICANN bottom-up, >> multistakeholder policy development processes? >> - Are there any specific areas of tension between the two, and if so >> how can these be managed? >> - What specific steps could be taken to promote better communication& >> coordination, given GAC's professed constraints with respect to >> collective and individual government participation in multistakeholder >> processes? Can the Board see government representatives becoming more >> integrated in this model? If so, how? >> >> 2. New Constituency Process and the NCSG charter >> >> 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. >> >> 3. ICANN engagement with developing and transitional countries >> >> How can ICANN enhance its engagement with developing and transitional >> countries? What procedural/institutional improvements could be >> envisioned to increase the effective participation of governments and >> other stakeholders from these countries? How can we increase the >> development-sensitivity of ICANN policy outputs, including but not >> only with respect to new gTLD applicant support? >> >> The NCSG looks forward to receiving notice of the 3 issues the Board >> will be contributing to the discussion. We also look forward to our >> meeting and send best wishes for everyones safe travel to Singapore. >> >> signed > >