AW: [council] Questions for chair
KnobenW at telekom.de
KnobenW at telekom.de
Wed Nov 17 08:33:41 UTC 2010
Thanks Olga! I think this is also a valuable input for the Cartagena
discussion on council role.
Von: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. November 2010 22:59
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Adrian Kinderis
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Betreff: Re: [council] Questions for chair
in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these
are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during
the conference call next Friday.
Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in
GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead
of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a
coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests
and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups
As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of
the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non
I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other
activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the
council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to
answer any other question or doubt you may have.
I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform"
included in your question.
Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its
perspective through outreach.
In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired
as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very
interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by
the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special
thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac,
Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their
active participation in drafting the document).
If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse
perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it
would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder
groups into different projects.
As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you
were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are
relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their
stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate
in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial
issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources.
In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's
position in the policy development process becoming more and more
weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a
broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach
I will be happy to explain this further or answer other
questions next Thrusday.
2010/11/16 <KnobenW at telekom.de>
I've 2 questions to both candidates:
I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action
item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which
specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the
council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work?
With respect to the fact that the board recently
took decision on VI without having received a specific council
recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the
council's position in the policy development process becoming more and
Thanks and regards
Please note the following action items from our
Council meeting one week ago:
1. Assuming we dispense with the
prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on
the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or
not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of
factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria
for choosing projects and work items.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council