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]> 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 > > > > > > > > -- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 (0)771 247 2987