Thanks Bill - one note below
for you
Joy
On 17 June 2015 2:20:13 am William Drake <[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]> 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]>>:
> > 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
> >
>
>