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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

That sounds great. In fact, IMHO, everything we’ve been hearing from the OEC on this so far has demonstrated a desire on their part to make sure that this process continues to move forward in partnership with the GNSO, in a way that I find to be very encouraging.

Thanks again, Marika.

Amr

> On Apr 21, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr, 
> 
> I confirmed with Larisa that my understanding is in line with the
> expectation of the OEC Board. Furthermore, she noted that 'The main point
> is that in order for meaningful improvements to take place, the GNSO
> Council representing the GNSO, staff and Board should all have a shared
> understanding of what needs to be improved, why, how improvements will
> take place and how results will be measuredˇŻ.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> On 21/04/16 07:03, "Marika Konings" <owner-council at gnso.icann.org on
> behalf of marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> In relation to your question concerning the implementation plan, it is
>> staff©ös understanding that similar to the last GNSO Review the GNSO will
>> be asked to develop an implementation plan for the Board©ös 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 week©ös 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 Board©ös OEC to continue, particularly in the event that the OEC
>>> should decide that it disagrees with any of the working party©ös
>>> 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 didn©öt 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 Council©ös 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
>>> wasn©öt, I©öm 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 Board©ös Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning
>>>> the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party©ös
>>>> 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>
>>>