[council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis

[Marika Konings]

Hi Amr,

In relation to your question concerning the implementation plan, it is
staff¹s understanding that similar to the last GNSO Review the GNSO will
be asked to develop an implementation plan for the Board¹s consideration.
The assumption is that following the development of this plan it would go
through the normal GNSO Council approval process before it is submitted to
the ICANN Board. However, I will check with Larisa if our understanding is
not inline with the expectation of the OEC/Board.

Best regards,

Marika

On 21/04/16 05:45, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Thanks for this. I will provide some additional input as instructed,
>which I will limit to the feedback received during last week¹s webinar.
>
>I have one suggestion as an addition to this letter ‹  something to
>indicate that the GNSO Council expects the dialogue between the GNSO and
>the Board¹s OEC to continue, particularly in the event that the OEC
>should decide that it disagrees with any of the working party¹s
>assessments.
>
>This was a topic discussed during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board
>in Marrakech, and at the time, the indication was that the Board would be
>agreeable to discussing any areas of concern or disagreement before
>making any decisions.
>
>Additionally, I have a question. The letter says:
>
>> Additionally, this forthcoming work will require active participation
>>from the GNSO community and ultimately approval of the implementation
>>plan by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
>
>
>I didn¹t think that this is the case, but would be glad to learn that I
>am wrong. My understanding is that the GNSO review was overseen by the
>Board, not the GNSO Council. Why would the Council¹s approval of the
>implementation plan be required? I mean it would make sense that the GNSO
>is on board with the plan, seeing that it would need to participate in
>the actual implementation. Had the review been initiated by the GNSO, the
>role of the Council would likely have been very different. Since it
>wasn¹t, I¹m not sure whether or not the Council approval is required at
>any point. Am I mistaken?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Amr
>
>> On Apr 21, 2016, at 4:45 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter
>>to the Board¹s Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning
>>the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party¹s
>>Feasibility and Prioritisation Analysis of the GNSO Review
>>recommendations. As you will note, placeholder language has been
>>included to accommodate any additional comments GNSO Council members may
>>want to include concerning the feasibility and priority of the GNSO
>>Review recommendations, as discussed during the Council meeting.
>> 
>> If you want to add any comments in relation to the feasibility and
>>prioritisation of the recommendations, please provide those at the
>>latest by Friday 22 April. As noted during the Council meeting as well
>>as pointed out in the draft letter, the next phase of work will focus on
>>the development of the implementation plan so any comments related to
>>that aspect of the process should be reserved for the next phase.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Marika
>> <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - 20 April 2016.docx>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4599 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160421/8b8ceb0b/smime.p7s>