[PC-NCSG] Notes of 12 Oct NCSG PC meeting

[Maria Farrell]

Hi guys, with apologies. Consider yourselves added.

On 13 October 2014 08:00, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Maria, small first remark as well. Could you please add me to the list
> of attendees?
> Thanks
> Mar?lia
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Many thanks for the great turnout and discussion yesterday. As the GNSO
>> Council agenda was pretty light, we had a useful and informative discussion
>> on some broader topics, which I personally found very helpful - so thanks
>> to everyone.
>>
>> All the best, Maria
>>
>> NCSG PC
>>
>> 12 Oct 2014
>>
>>
>>
>> Participants:
>>
>> Joy Liddicoat
>>
>> Amr El Sadr
>>
>> Olevie Kouami
>>
>> Carolos Affonso
>>
>> Wendy Seltzer
>>
>> Carlos Guttierez
>>
>> Niels ten Oever
>>
>> Lori Schulman
>>
>> Sam LanFranco
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> Maria Farrell
>>
>> Avri Doria
>>
>> Bill Drake
>>
>> David Cake
>>
>> Robin Gross
>>
>> Milton Mueller
>>
>> Magaly Pazello
>>
>> Klaus Stoll
>>
>>
>>
>> 1                     Prep for High Interest Topic SO/AC meeting
>>
>> a.       Role of Advisory Committees in ICANN policy-making
>>
>>                                                                i.      Keep
>> the GAC role in the discussion, even though the agenda has been changed to
>> focus less on the GAC
>>
>>                                                              ii.      Provide
>> input to the bylaw change public comment period on changing Board voting
>> threshold for rejecting GAC advice
>>
>>                                                             iii.      Remind
>> people that GAC advice has a much shallower process than GNSO policy
>>
>>                                                            iv.      Find
>> an opportunity to mention the accepted need for the Human Rights Advisory
>> Committee
>>
>> b.      New gTLDs, 2nd round
>>
>>                                                                i.      Evaluate
>> the first round before the second one begins (need clarity on where that
>> point is)
>>
>>                                                              ii.      Developing
>> country support and outreach to developing countries ? we can say
>> diplomatically ?we told you so? as we were not listened to on these topics
>> and the consequences are clear
>>
>>                                                             iii.      What
>> are the criteria for success or failure of the round (and programme does
>> not equal success or failure of individual TLDs)? NCSG believes narrowly
>> economic criteria are far too narrow and we will push to develop evaluation
>> criteria that go wider, including the non-commercial and often positive
>> economic implications of commercial TLDs
>>
>>                                                            iv.      Evaluation
>> should not just focus on who got names or what TLDs there are, and also
>> look at who did NOT apply and why not
>>
>>                                                              v.      The
>> programme was overly concerned to avoid gaming, which happened anyway, and
>> not concerned with many non-commercial issues
>>
>>                                                            vi.      The
>> role of the Independent Experts needs to be looked at sharply in the review
>> ? they brought little useful or new to the evaluation of specific TLDs
>>
>>                                                           vii.      We
>> should start evaluating the issues right now, i.e. the problems that have
>> arisen, rather than wait to the end of the process to start looking at them
>>
>>                                                         viii.      We
>> should propose a Programme Evaluation Framework, i.e. a logic model that
>> looks at what the objectives of the programme were (or should have been)
>> and measuring it up against them.
>>
>> 2                     GNSO Council agenda prep
>>
>> a.       Voting on resolutions on IRTP(D) and to adopt the charter of
>> the Cross Community Working Group are expected to be largely positive.
>>
>>                                                                i.      Avri
>> took part in the various IRTP working groups and endorsed the work.
>>
>>                                                              ii.       Bill,
>> Avri and David gave background of the CCWG charter process and what it
>> might be expected to achieve, and encouraged Council members to vote in
>> favour of it.
>>
>> 3              Maria said as she is finishing her term as a Council
>> member, she will shortly be stepping down as Chair of the NCSG PC and so we
>> will need to start a process to elect a new chair. More on that anon.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
> School
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
>
> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141013/8ae85698/attachment.html>