+1 Yes I like that phrasing aswell. Q2: Are there any NCSG specific questions that we want to address re IANA if not then as has been said there will be a lot of discussion in other forums. Q3: This was I believe an attempt to get some clarity of the boards understanding of their fiduciary responsibility in more detail, and ask if they have received guidance or legal advice as to their obligations to the community vs ICANN Q4: If we are going to lead with PICS then lets make sure we have assessed what we think the board will say and our positions on that. Q5: I think auction proceeds and wethe the board is going to let the CCWG on this take the lead or wether they plan to act unilaterally on this is an important one, this also ties into the fiduciary question in my opinion aswell. Is there a risk that the board feels that letting the community decide on the auctions proceeds fund may conflict with their fiduciary responsibility if we decide one path and they feel another is more prudent. -James From: NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Matthew Shears Reply-To: Matthew Shears Date: Tuesday 16 June 2015 21:15 To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" Subject: Re: [Poll] Reminder Topics for discussion with Board at Tuesday 23rd June 19:45 UTC Agree Bill and I like Joy's "question as to whether they have given any consideration to any trends or new issues beyond the new gTLDs that might arise in the next 3-5 years" - of course they could cop out and say "well what do you think......" but it is perhaps worth asking it. Matthew On 6/16/2015 9:10 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: Thanks Bill - one note below for you Joy On 17 June 2015 2:20:13 am William Drake <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi > > Vinciane’s message prompted me to go back and reread the thread in which we discussed the topics. Based on prior experience, I’m inclined to think five questions is more than we’re going to be able to have meaningful exchanges on, so it might be worth paring things down; and that broadly framed questions can lead to uninspired responses and discussions. > Q 1 on naming policy programs outside of the new gTLD program: I was with those who thought this is a bit broad, so I’m not surprised by the Board’s request for clarification. Would like to hear from those who advocated it. JL:Iadvocated for this one - it is really a very simple question and the Board's difficulty in understanding it may point more to checking that it is not somehow a trick question, which it isn't... It is simply a question as to whether they have given any considertaion to any trends or new issues beyond the new gTLDs that might arise in the next 3-5 years. The obvious answer is that if ICANN is bottom up community policy then it will be the community that takes new issues to the Board. This question is simply asking if the Board itself has been considering any > Q2 on IANA: this will be discussed all week and in the Public Forum, so do we need it again here? > Q3 on fiduciary: again, would like to hear from the advocates what we’re looking for here. > Q4 on Public Interest Commitments: this seems like it offers multiple angles for conversation, so I’d suggest it be the lead question and main focus. The Board didn’t ask for clarification of this one. > Q5 on auction proceeds: we will have discussed this the day prior in the High Interest Topic session but it’ll have been SOACSGCRALO chairs on stage, so seeking the Board’s reactions would be timely. The Board didn’t ask for clarification of this one. > So my suggestion would be to lead with 4, then do 5, and then maybe 3 or 1 in whatever time is left…? > > Best > > Bill > > > On Jun 16, 2015, at 2:59 AM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[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: > > > > CEO Succession > > New gTLD's > > USG Transition > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2015-06-14 9:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[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 > > > > -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987