<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4943.400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Liz
& fellow Councillors</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Thank
you Liz and thank you Philip for your contribution to Liz's draft. The point you
have raised cover many of the specific points I would wish to
make.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>1.
Rational</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Please
forward to Council copies of any papers (I am presuming that every Board agenda
item has a paper supporting it) and/or section of the transcript from the Board
discussion leading to the Board's resolution tasking the development of the TOR.
This would provide invaluable context and greater understanding as to the
Board's expectations regarding the review</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>2.
Background</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
think it would be helpful to provide extracts of the original green and white
papers and the recent evolution and reform report that address the GNSO
(DNSO)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>3.
Scope</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
preface my following comments with the expectation/understanding, that this
review is seeking opportunities to <STRONG>improve </STRONG>the workings of the
GNSO.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Thus
my generalised approach, would be something like:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>a)
record how the GNSO (and its various elements) is working -
facts</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>b)
check this against the overall objective (ie. bottom up policy development) and
other relevant sub objectives (eg. diversity, etc) -
comparison</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>c)
identify impediments or opportunities for improvement -
identification</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>d)
possible courses of action, alternates/options for consideration -
recommendations </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>With
the above in mind, I think we need to be tighter in our language and not use
words like "fairness" and when talking about "best" we need to either tie
that to some criteria or stipulate (through the TOR) that the reviewer must
be very explicit in their choice, identification of and rational for
comparators.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>There
are duplications in the questions between each of the sub sections (eg Authority
and effectiveness). These should be removed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=452051611-24082005>Just a
couple of notes on process:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=452051611-24082005>-
Please can we have paragraph/bullet point numbering in all staff/policy
papers (including those commissioned from external
consultants)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=452051611-24082005>- I
think we have planned to have direct engagement/cooperative working between
Council (or subset) and Board (or subset). I support this and would not wish to
see the staff put into a position of communicating between the Council and
Board. Thus the staff function in all this is to do as Liz is doing which is to
draft papers for Council (and then Council and Board)
consideration/consultation/modification/adoption - not to present the views of
either Council or Board to the other via papers.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=452051611-24082005>- My
understanding is that the next version of Liz's "paper" will be a draft TOR -
presumably with accompanying annexes etc</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=452051611-24082005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Regards</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Grant Forsyth</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>TelstraClear</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cnr Taharoto &
Northcote Roads</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Private Bag 92143</FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>AUCKLAND</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>ph +64 9
912 5759</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>fx + 64 9 912 4077</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>Mb 029 912 5759 </FONT></P>
<DIV><SPAN class=578412812-23082005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BODY></HTML>