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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Marika,

I appreciate the insight and the relevant link. I was mistaken about the last review. Thanks for steering me in the right direction.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Apr 21, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> 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>
>>>> 
>>