Fwd: FW: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members

[Mike Roberts]

 From the standpoint of the ICANN NomCom, on which Chris Martin and I 
serve, this further complicates an already complicated situation.

It is widely thought in ICANN circles that the workload on Board 
members is too high.  Certainly it is far beyond the norm of private 
sector directors, and in some respects, it is those norms we are 
competing against in recruiting experienced people to serve on the 
Board.

(The ATRT report, BTW, got this all wrong in its insistence on more 
Board time and effort than is currently committed.)

So, it simply doesn't work to assume the Board adds a bunch more time 
for interactions with governments on top of what they are already 
doing.  Something has to be subtracted from the list of direct 
interaction commitments.

I think the BC, with its knowledge of how private sector 
organizations and their Boards get the job done, could usefully make 
some suggestions along this line.

- Mike Roberts

----------------


From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
To: "bc-gnso at icann.org" <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] Input needed from all members
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:06:19 +0000

ICA is fine with focusing primarily on new gTLDs, notwithstanding our 
differences with some of the BC rights protection positions.

While not strictly on the AOC, and perhaps not a topic for extended 
discussion with the Board at this particular meeting, I think that 
all BC members should think about how ICANN meetings should best be 
structured to take into account the new reality of substantially 
increased GAC involvement in the policy process. The Board and the 
GAC now plan two days of meetings in San Francisco on new gTLDs (and 
also, presumably, .xxx) -- on Tuesday, Constituency Day, and on 
Thursday, which is usually devoted to a lengthy public forum. As 
there are so many hours in a day, the time the Board huddles with the 
GAC is time that they cannot interact with constituencies or with the 
community -- plus they will naturally be more focused mentally on the 
meetings with the GAC. While there are unlikely to be issues of the 
same intensity as new gTLDs in the immediate future, GAC members made 
it quite clear that they want to be involved in future policy issues 
from the beginning, and that the form o!
  f discussion with the Board taking place now is setting a precedent.

So I think we should all assume that ICANN meetings in the future 
will either be longer, or differently structured, and have some 
internal discussion about what revised format would best serve 
business users.