makes a lot of sense to me. avri On 16-Jun-15 10:20, William Drake 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. > * 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: >> >> 1. CEO Succession >> 2. New gTLD's >> 3. 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 >> >> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus