<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>Actually, Grant, excellent role model. </P>
<P>.</P>
<P>I had suggested to Liz that we shoudl all be into transparency, but hadn't' "modeled" that behavior as well as you have. I will post my exchanges with Liz to the Council list and leave it to Liz to post her responses. I do agree that we should all remember and model through our behavior that transparency is key to ICANN's success. As I said to Liz, ....of course. people can choose to have private and off the record converstaions, but those have limited application in an approach to assessing the SO. I say that and recognize that not all cultures are comfortable with having their names attached to their comments. Still, the comments have to be public, even if they are anonymized. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>However, I'll share my comments to the list in the interest of transparency. marilyn<BR><BR></P><BR><BR><BR>>From: Grant FORSYTH <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz><BR>>To: Liz Williams <liz.williams@icann.org><BR>>CC: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, council@gnso.icann.org<BR>>Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Review<BR>>Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:28:05 +1200<BR>><BR>>Hi Liz<BR>>Thank you for contacting me for some early input to the development of the<BR>>TOR.<BR>>While you have noted that you would not forward my responses and would<BR>>'anonymise' (is there such a word?) my thoughts, I am more comfortable<BR>>responding transparently through Council and would wish that other<BR>>Councillors (and I understand that you have approached [all?]
other<BR>>Councillors, which I think is correct) respond transparently. Transparency<BR>>is important to the GNSO.<BR>><BR>>I have one significant suggestion at this time and that is for another<BR>>'section' or 'dimension' to add to the four that you have proposed.<BR>>I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing<BR>>and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed<BR>>understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values<BR>>(eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU).<BR>><BR>>I think it would be desirable to have such a fulsome purpose<BR>>statement/description agreed by Council, going into the review.<BR>>If you could draft such a statement supported by references, that would be<BR>>most useful.<BR>><BR>>In the mean time, I will give
further thought to the other dimensions that<BR>>you have proposed be the framework for data gathering.<BR>>(Have I got it right as to what your 4 sections are?)<BR>>Regards<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Grant Forsyth<BR>>Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs<BR>>TelstraClear<BR>>Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads<BR>>Private Bag 92143<BR>>AUCKLAND<BR>>ph +64 9 912 5759<BR>>fx + 64 9 912 4077<BR>>Mb 029 912 5759<BR>><BR>>-----Original Message-----<BR>>From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@icann.org]<BR>>Sent: Tuesday, 02 August, 2005 00:44<BR>>To: Grant FORSYTH<BR>>Subject: GNSO Review<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Grant<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>You will have seen Bruce's note about the GNSO review -- I am going to be<BR>>responsible for putting that together from the ICANN side. I am collecting<BR>>some
initial thoughts and would appreciate your input.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Just to recap the timing first. We have to have ready for the VCR Board<BR>>meeting the Terms of Reference that will then trigger the review to take<BR>>place in early 2006. The exact timing is yet to be established but, based<BR>>on instructions from JJ, I will need to have the report ready one month<BR>>prior to Nov 30 to enable sufficient time to get the Board their proper<BR>>papers. That means we have August, Sept and Oct to get initial thoughts,<BR>>first draft and final draft ready. I will prepare a project map in the next<BR>>couple of days that will include all these critical dates. I will circulate<BR>>that when we have the early thoughts phase completed.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>As you know, the review is required
by the by-laws and the LUX board<BR>>resolution which means that we can use input from all kinds of sources to<BR>>inform the questions which need answering.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>I have put below the four sections into which I'm organizing early thoughts.<BR>>Your input into any or all of those sections gratefully received.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>1. Operational - most objective of the categories. Based on facts and<BR>>figures about voting patterns, trends, participation rates, numbers, types<BR>>and kinds of meetings. (Glen is helping me here and we have just completed<BR>>our conversation)<BR>><BR>>2. Effectiveness -- partly objective/partly subjective. Need to look<BR>>at time lines for consideration of issues. Need to also consider, once<BR>>policy is made, is it implemented
easily, quickly. What compliance issues<BR>>are there? What is balance between policy compliance and, for example, need<BR>>for binding contract.<BR>><BR>>3. Relationships - partly objective/partly subjective. Need to examine<BR>>relationships with the board, with staff, with other SOs. Need to look at<BR>>internal relationships within the structure of the GNSO (are the<BR>>constituencies representative, transparent, effective at demonstrating<BR>>positions/views/diversity of opinion). How does work get done; are the<BR>>existing processes and procedures working and effective. What measures<BR>>should we use to answer those questions? Need work here on identifying<BR>>breakages in the system. For example, should there be closer/more<BR>>supportive/more direct staff
intervention? Should there be broader<BR>>constituency membership to spread consultation mechanisms?<BR>><BR>>4. Perceptual - the most subjective of the four categories. Need<BR>>questions around perceptions of inclusiveness, transparency, attitudes of<BR>>external bodies \ and internal groupings like board, staff and other SOs.<BR>>Measuring this (and then improving) is difficult but quite valuable.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>I am particularly interested, from your side, to hear about representation,<BR>>plurality of views, openness of processes. I have been reviewing each of<BR>>the GNSO constituencies to see how that is handled - each one is, of course,<BR>>different!<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>At this early stage I am sharing these thoughts with Council members some of<BR>>whom I've been able to catch by
phone. I will then bring those responses<BR>>together into a first draft. I am also using this model to seek views from<BR>>the staff and others.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>I will not forward your responses and you can expect to see anonymised<BR>>thoughts put into a more formal paper for public consumption a few weeks<BR>>down the track. You can call me if you would prefer - numbers below.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Kind regards.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Liz<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>Liz Williams<BR>><BR>>Senior Policy Counselor<BR>><BR>>ICANN - Brussels<BR>><BR>>Tel: +32 2 234 7874<BR>><BR>>Fax: +32 2 234 7848<BR>><BR>>Mob: +61 414 26 9000<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR></DIV></div></html>