[registrars] WG: [Fwd: [council] Summary of LSE constituency input]

[Tim Ruiz]

Tom,

No comments on the support/priority ranking. But I do have concerns with
the intent of a matrix approach like this. Some of the recommendations
are interdependent in my view. For example, 19, 20 and 21. And some of
the recommendations under Working procedures seem dependent on 6 and 18
under Structure. 

If that is not currently being considered, I would suggest putting that
on the table for Lisbon.


Tim 
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] WG: [Fwd: [council] Summary of LSE constituency
input]
From: "Thomas Keller" <tom at schlund.de>
Date: Tue, February 27, 2007 8:23 am
To: <registrars at gnso.icann.org>

Dear fellow registrars,

could you please review the attached document to make sure that our
views
are
correctly represented. If there is any need for change please let Bruce,
Ross
or me know.

Best,

tom 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
Im
Auftrag von Denise Michel
Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Februar 2007 11:32
An: GNSO Council
Betreff: [Fwd: [council] Summary of LSE constituency input]

Following-up on Bruce's request -- would you please send your
constituency's
edits to the attached chart to the GNSO Secretariat
<gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> by Friday, 2 March.  Please let Glen
know
if you need more time.

Again, this chart will be used to inform the Board Governance Committee
and
will help form a basis for selecting a few recommendations relating to
major
structural issues for public discussion in Lisbon.  We are scheduling a
public forum on Monday in Lisbon to discuss GNSO Improvements.

Thanks.
Denise

Denise Michel
Vice President, Policy Development
ICANN   www.icann.org
denise.michel at icann.org


-------- Original Message --------


Hello All,

I asked the staff to summarise the views of each of the constituencies
on
the LSE report.

Each recommendation is ranked in terms of level of support for the
recommendation, and priority for implementing the recommendation.

The rankings are high, medium, low.

This draft table has been prepared based on the inputs to the public
forum.

The recommendations have also been broken into the following categories:

- participation

- rules

- structure

- tools-support

- working procedures

Please review and advise ICANN staff of any corrections.

The purpose of this document will be to help inform the Board Governance
Committee and also form a basis for selecting a few recommendations
(such as recommendation 19) for public discussion in Lisbon.   The aim
is to focus discuss on major structural issues in Lisbon, rather than
debate
whether the website could be better.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin