[council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board regarding Public Participation

[Gomes, Chuck]

I agree that this is a good edit.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 5:05 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board 
> regarding Public Participation
> 
> 
> That seems a fine edit to me.
> 
> It certainly was the intention.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:58 PM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board 
> regarding Public Participation
> 
> 
> Thanks to Adrian and all involved in the drafting of this letter.
> 
> I have just one comment re the paragraph requesting that 
> staff and Board members answer the questions raised during 
> public sessions directly (I have copied the paragraph below 
> for clarity). Is the intent here that staff and/or Board 
> should answer all questions directly during the session? Or 
> is the request that answers be provided at some point after 
> the session as was the case with the document published by 
> staff after Cairo? I think this just needs a little 
> clarification in the text. Assuming it is the latter, I 
> propose the following edit below (marked by start and end 
> points in caps and
> brackets):
> 
> The quality of these sessions and the satisfaction of 
> participants can often be gauged on the level of ICANN Board 
> interaction. The GNSO Council would like the ICANN Board and 
> staff to continue with the practice started in Cairo of 
> responding directly to questions where appropriate, (SVG EDIT
> BEGINS) either at the time or in a subsequent document to be 
> published not long after the meeting, as was the case in 
> Cairo.(SVG EDIT ENDS) These sessions should not simply be 
> Œone way traffic¹.  The audience benefits from hearing direct 
> responses from the ICANN Board and staff on relevant issues.
> Many believe that it is the duty of a Board Member, in taking 
> on the role, that they actively engage their constituents.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> 
> 
> Le 03/02/09 00:12, « Avri Doria » <avri at acm.org> a écrit :
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > In order to get this sent as soon as possible, I would like 
> to avoid 
> > waiting until we have a meeting for the approval.
> >
> > So,  I ask for a 24 hour call on this document.   If there are no
> > comments I will send it to the Board with a copy to the appropriate 
> > Staff leadership on Wednesday 4 Feb at 0000 UTC.
> >
> > If there are any comments or corrections, the call will 
> continue for 
> > another 24 hours from when the revised version is sent to the list.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 Feb 2009, at 17:13, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> In Cairo I was asked to head a drafting team to author a letter to 
> >> the ICANN Board conveying our disappointment in the Public 
> >> Participation sessions at the Cairo Meeting and to address the 
> >> concern that ICANN was trending to reduce the amount of ³contact 
> >> sessions² between the Public and the Board ­ a vital part of the 
> >> ICANN Meetings.
> >>
> >> Please find attached the letter that we submit to the Council for 
> >> approval to go to the Board.
> >>
> >> Avri, can you please provide the appropriate comment period and 
> >> detail the process for this to happen.
> >>
> >> Thanks to Chuck, Avri and Kristina for their assistance.
> >>
> >> Adrian Kinderis
> >>
> >>
> >> <GNSO letter to the Board RE Public Participation.doc>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>