Please note that this workspace will be used to gather the At-Large's questions for the ICANN Board during the Toronto Meeting.

The deadline for comments is 19-September-2012 at 23:59 UTC.

Please note that the call for comments below has been extended until 2-October-2012 23:59 UTC.

  • No labels

9 Comments

  1. What is ICANN's  plans to elevate it's public awareness and consumer confidence amidst the poor history of effective communication in the media.  How can ICANN be more proactive and responsive to issues that impact people's use of the Internet?

  2. What was the rationale used that resulted in Compliance reporting directly to the CEO?

  3. I think that the decision was one of the CEO, not the Board.

    1. So, do we ask the CEO then?

  4. I think the CEO has already made the answer known directly: he has heard from several people, ourselves included (remember the interventions in the public forum), that Compliance should not report to Legal. Since it is such an important function in his eyes, he wants compliance to report directly to him.

    I think he might touch on this and explain it in anyway, when we meet with him.

    1. Ok. Time will tell if this change anything. However, for what I have seen I think there is a good probability that it will.

  5. Operationally, with the right CEO and the proper set of priorities from the Board, there is not much difference. But without the same Board priorities, reporting to a Board committee would not be effective either. So it comes down to the CEO and what his relative priorities are. So bottom line, it remains to be seen if this will really change things or not.

    1. I agree with your comment.

       

  6. The following three questions approved by the ExCom were sent to Board support staff on 8 October 2012:

    1) Given the problems ICANN has encountered with its URS plans and with protection of non-trade-name such as the Red Cross, is there any effort to creatively address the needs of Internet end users and content providers? Why is the URS policy being sent back to the community for re-examination, when its problems may lie in implementation (i.e., procurement) rather than policy?

     

    2) Recently, challenges have been made to what are called "private" domains. Is the Board addressing this issue and if so, how? Will ICANN continue to support the ability of gTLD applicants to create innovative ways to use and allocate domains? Is there any threat of existing good faith applications being denied on the grounds of their business models?

     

    3. The ALAC has produced its first White Paper which re-examines some of the fundamentals of how ICANN works. While there are ALAC reviews and Board reviews and SO reviews, has the Board or its members given any consideration to an organization-wide 'ICANN review', in light of external threats and comments about ICANN's effectiveness as a global custodian of the public trust?