[NCSG-PC] people in charge of reading out the questions in Board meeting

[farzaneh badii]

I allocated some of the Board questions to names. You will be in charge of
reading them and the questions are in order of priority. We might not get
to ask them all.


1. ICANN and GDPR compliance: there are still issues with compliance models
offered by ICANN such as lack of data minimization, maintaining thick data
and giving power to GAC to come up with the tiered access and
certification. Does the board see these aspects of the models as
problematic? we would like to know the opinion of Board on these issues.
(Stephanie Perrin)

2. Although we had talked to some Board members about the jurisdiction subgroup
recommendations and their importance to facilitate global access to DNS,
Board Comments on Jurisdiction Sub Group were far from positive.  For
example, it was even suggested by the board to consider opportunity costs
in the study that needs to be done for seeking a general OFAC license.
Global access to DNS is in ICANN mission if the Board believes that then
asking to do opportunity costs for something that enables ICANN to do its
mission might not be workable. There are other examples of not supportive
comments to jurisdiction recommendations which we will discuss during the
meeting if needed. (Farzaneh Badiei)

3. Some of the budget cuts at ICANN will directly or indirectly affect our
policy work. ICANN has an increase in personnel budget while there are a
lot of cuts in community budget, and GNSO policy team which supports the
GNSO policy development has had serious cuts. Community Additional Budget
Request has been reduced by half and CROP was removed from this year budget
without any announcement. We want to know the opinion of Board about these
cuts. (Ayden)


4. CCT-Review- Implementation: We are concerned about CCT-Review
recommendations. Some of their very controversial recommendations been
supported by GAC.  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.] At the moment we don't see our comments on
their recommendations being given due consideration. How does the board
plan to implement these CCT-Review recommendations and what would be the
implications if the final version of review does not include community
comments? (Rafik Dammak)


4. On many levels, GAC advice has been given undue attention. Post IANA
transition, we would like the Board to honor ICANN bylaws and not look at
GAC whenever it does not have a solution for a problem. This has been
happening, for example in the GDPR models suggested by ICANN, (in the
second model) GAC has the primary role of certification. What should we do
so that the Board does not look at GAC as a source of solutions in matters
related to GNSO remit? [this also happened in the two letter second level
domain names that correspond with country codes (ccTLD). Board considered
GAC advice which was not even based on consensus and implemented it without
any consultation with GNSO although the two letters consisted of generic
names. Please refer to NCSG public comment on this issue for more
information: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-
proposed-measures-two-char-08jul16/pdf7DRdQjpIWq.pdf] (Tatiana Tropina)



Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180307/79a85abe/attachment.htm>