[Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG session in Buenos Aires : Deadline 15th May

[Marilia Maciel]

Good questions. I think it will be an intetesting conversation.
Marilia
Em 15/05/2015 05:57, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> escreveu:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org <aelsadr at egyptig.org>]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 9:55 AM
> To: James Gannon
> Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [Poll] Reminder topics of interest for the ICANN Board-NCSG
> session in Buenos Aires : Deadline 15th May
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the rewrite James. I think this is very helpful. More inline:
>
> On May 15, 2015, at 10:08 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> wrote:
>
> > So I would think that Bill is along the right track here, lets not try
> and ask open ended questions that allow response that don’t answer the
> question.
> >
> > In an attempt to get more specific heres my suggestions:
> >
> >        • Does the board have any plans for new/revised/additional naming
> policy pr programs outside of the new gTLD program?
>
> I’m still not exactly sure where we’re going with this question. I would
> like to point out that the publication of a final report of the GNSO policy
> and implementation WG is imminent. I’m guessing it will be on the Council
> agenda by the BA meeting. If the WG recommendations are adopted by the
> Council and the Board, this will lead to significant changes in the PDP
> Manual and Annex A of the ICANN by-laws that will limit to a great extent
> what the ICANN board can do with gTLD policy without going through the
> GNSO. I guess what I’m trying to say that any discussion on this topic may
> be moot considering some of the ongoing work in the GNSO. Maybe including
> the policy and implementation WG initial report recommendations within the
> context of this topic might be helpful.
>
> JG: Yeah I'm not 100% on what response we want on this one, one thing I
> could think of would be additional programs like new gTLDs ,that’s why I
> added the additional 'or programs' I'll have a look back through the thread
> to see what the original driver for the question was.
>
> >        • 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?
>
> I prefer the earlier framing of this question having it begin with “Why”,
> not “Does”. The easy answer to “Does” would be a No from the board members.
> There have been indications that staff (perhaps not the board) are pushing
> for IANA to remain within ICANN in perpetuity. The question should be
> framed to ask the board to clear up the ambiguities and mixed messages.
> Doing this does not need to be adversarial. I’m guessing this issue will
> probably come up outside of the NCSG meeting with the board anyway, so it
> may be unnecessary to bring it up at all, or perhaps revise the question
> based on updates we hear in BA.
>
> JG: Agreed this one should be fluid depending on more info as time goes on.
>
> >        • 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. (JG: Personal
> suggested addition, 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?]
>
> An important question to add here might be a clarification on future
> actions regarding the PICS. There is a need for a process to revise the
> PICS, their enforcement and PIC Dispute Resolution Process. Ideally, this
> should go through a GNSO PDP. Informal discussions have begun on this
> during and post-Singapore. The discussions need to become more open and
> inclusive.
>
> JG: Ok good, I would suggest possibly adding the inline text above then.
>
> >        • 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]
>
> Agree on including this question, although it seems to me that it would
> help if this was a question the GNSO Council also directed to the board. In
> S. Crocker’s letter to the Council, he indicated that CCWG recommendations
> would be considered, but would not be the only determining factors
> influencing the Board’s decision. What other considerations is the Board
> factoring in here. Instead of them doing this unilaterally, why don’t they
> just ask the CCWG to consider them in their deliberations?
>
> JG: Added suggested text inline. Can we suggest that the Council also
> bring the question, the more times it’s asked the better? Depending on the
> feedback we get we can then bring follow-ups to the public meeting/any
> alter meetings with the board during BA.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150515/6957f9c8/attachment.htm>