+1 to all. Am more than agreed. I think we need to be specific in our questions so as to get the exact answers of expectation. Regardd On Jun 16, 2015 8:59 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: > > > 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]>: > >> 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 >> > >