Questions to and from Board in ICANN 61

[Mueller, Milton L]

If we use this, it is best to be very specific about what comments of ours were not addressed.

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 6:38 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Questions to and from Board in ICANN 61

Hi Farzaneh,


thanks for the suggestions.
regarding the bullet point #2, maybe we can frame it as a question to the board on how it will respond to the CCT recommendations (in term of the process) and how it will deal with comments and concerns from groups like NCSG they were not addressed by the CCT (waiting for the final report to check the changes).

Best,

Rafik
2018-02-09 5:55 GMT+09:00 farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>:
All,

We need to come up with questions to the Board by 12 February. That means only four days.

Here are a couple of my suggestions:

1. One of the questions could be GDPR and the models, or it could be in general about WHOIS Privacy. Any specific questions you want to ask? How should we frame it? Normally board does not really respond to GDPR questions and refers to the CEO. So if we really want this on the agenda, we should ask good questions.

2. CCT RT: The other issue could be CCT RT. From my brief reading of the review, I wonder if the consumers' individual rights are also considered in consumer trust and competition review team? Not that I can see, but perhaps I am wrong here and consumers are not registrants but just end users. All I see in this review is how to protect IP and how to prevent DNS Abuse (which we have to be careful about its definition). The Review team has gone so far to recommend a contractual change (it recommends it to ICANN Board, GNSO, and a WG). The change (which we opposed in our public comment) says that: [ A. Consider directing ICANN org, in its discussions with registries, to negotiate amendments to existing Registry Agreements, or in negotiations of new Registry Agreements associated with subsequent rounds of new gTLDs to include provisions in the agreements providing incentives, including financial incentives for registries, especially open registries, to adopt proactive anti-abuse measures.]

What I am worried about is that GAC actually supported this change in its public comment. When GAC supports something, the Board is all ears. Should we raise this issue with the Board in a perhaps more eloquent fashion?

3. I don't know if we should ask this from the Board, but I would like to know if it would be possible to get an external legal counsel to help RDS with its deliberations. What I have witnessed is that so many people with little legal knowledge or too much legal knowledge get into a group and discuss matters that are in dire need of neutral legal consultation. We need to have an external, neutral legal counsel. I think having an external legal counsel can actually help us proceed faster. But I don't know if PDPs can get an external legal counsel.


Any ideas, comments?





Farzaneh

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:48 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear all,

Below are the questions from Board which they will ask the noncommercial stakeholder group:


1. What are your key goals in 2018?  The Board is interested in this question to make sure that its own priorities are aligned with the community’s priorities.
What are your most relevant longer-term goals?  The Board is interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and ICANN org.

2. What are your most relevant longer-term goals?  The Board is interested in this question because discussions about longer-term goals and strategic planning will commence soon between the community, the Board and ICANN org.

The also asked what our questions would be and gave us until 12 Feb to respond.

Best

Farzaneh


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180209/4d9b152c/attachment.htm>