[council] GNSO Review: Council Meeting Thursday 25 August, 1 2:00 UTC

Maria Farrell maria.farrell at icann.org
Wed Aug 24 16:40:17 UTC 2005

Dear all,
In response to point 2 below, please find attached the Board paper on the
GNSO review.
All the best, Maria


From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Grant FORSYTH
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:17 AM
To: 'Liz Williams'; council at gnso.icann.org; 'Philip Sheppard'
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Review: Council Meeting Thursday 25 August, 1
2:00 UTC

Liz & fellow Councillors
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
1. Rational
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
2. Background
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
3. Scope
I preface my following comments with the expectation/understanding, that
this review is seeking opportunities to improve the workings of the GNSO.
Thus my generalised approach, would be something like:
a) record how the GNSO (and its various elements) is working - facts
b) check this against the overall objective (ie. bottom up policy
development) and other relevant sub objectives (eg. diversity, etc) -
c) identify impediments or opportunities for improvement - identification
d) possible courses of action, alternates/options for consideration -
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.
There are duplications in the questions between each of the sub sections (eg
Authority and effectiveness). These should be removed.
Just a couple of notes on process:
- Please can we have paragraph/bullet point numbering in all staff/policy
papers (including those commissioned from external consultants)
- 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.
- My understanding is that the next version of Liz's "paper" will be a draft
TOR - presumably with accompanying annexes etc

Grant Forsyth 
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs 
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads 
Private Bag 92143 
ph +64 9 912 5759 
fx + 64 9 912 4077 
Mb 029 912 5759 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20050824/e6403096/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Review Board Paper.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 50688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20050824/e6403096/GNSOReviewBoardPaper.doc>

More information about the council mailing list