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

[Marika Konings]

Hi Amr,

No, I don’t believe that is correct, the last GNSO review as also part of
the Bylaw required structural review cycle which is initiated and overseen
by the ICANN Board. You can find further information at the bottom of this
page on the steps taking as part of that review:
https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/gnso.

Best regards,

Marika

On 21/04/16 07:49, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Thanks again, Marika. If I’m not mistaken, the last GNSO Review was
>initiated by the GNSO, not the Board (I wasn’t around back then, but that
>is what I’ve been told), so I wouldn’t be surprised if the process is a
>little different this time around.
>
>In any case, it’d be good to know, so thanks for volunteering to check it
>out. :)
>
>Amr
>
>> On Apr 21, 2016, at 3:03 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> In relation to your question concerning the implementation plan, it is
>> staffąs understanding that similar to the last GNSO Review the GNSO will
>> be asked to develop an implementation plan for the Boardąs
>>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 weekąs 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 Boardąs OEC to continue, particularly in the event that the OEC
>>> should decide that it disagrees with any of the working partyąs
>>> 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 didnąt 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 Counciląs 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
>>> wasnąt, Iąm 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 Boardąs Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning
>>>> the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Partyąs
>>>> 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/20160421/2d53c723/smime.p7s>