Actually, Grant, excellent role model.
.
I had suggested to Liz that we shoudl all be into transparency, but hadn't' "modeled" that behavior as well as you have. I will post my exchanges with Liz to the Council list and leave it to Liz to post her responses. I do agree that we should all remember and model through our behavior that transparency is key to ICANN's success. As I said to Liz, ....of course. people can choose to have private and off the record converstaions, but those have limited application in an approach to assessing the SO. I say that and recognize that not all cultures are comfortable with having their names attached to their comments. Still, the comments have to be public, even if they are anonymized.
However, I'll share my comments to the list in the interest of transparency. marilyn
>From: Grant FORSYTH <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
>To: Liz Williams <liz.williams@icann.org>
>CC: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, council@gnso.icann.org
>Subject: [council] RE: GNSO Review
>Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:28:05 +1200
>
>Hi Liz
>Thank you for contacting me for some early input to the development of the
>TOR.
>While you have noted that you would not forward my responses and would
>'anonymise' (is there such a word?) my thoughts, I am more comfortable
>responding transparently through Council and would wish that other
>Councillors (and I understand that you have approached [all?]
other
>Councillors, which I think is correct) respond transparently. Transparency
>is important to the GNSO.
>
>I have one significant suggestion at this time and that is for another
>'section' or 'dimension' to add to the four that you have proposed.
>I think it is crucial that in gathering data, asking questions, analysing
>and making recommendations, that this is done in a clear and agreed
>understanding of the purpose of the GNSO given ICANN's mission, core values
>(eg bottom up, consensus based policy development) and commitments (eg MOU).
>
>I think it would be desirable to have such a fulsome purpose
>statement/description agreed by Council, going into the review.
>If you could draft such a statement supported by references, that would be
>most useful.
>
>In the mean time, I will give
further thought to the other dimensions that
>you have proposed be the framework for data gathering.
>(Have I got it right as to what your 4 sections are?)
>Regards
>
>
>
>Grant Forsyth
>Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
>TelstraClear
>Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
>Private Bag 92143
>AUCKLAND
>ph +64 9 912 5759
>fx + 64 9 912 4077
>Mb 029 912 5759
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@icann.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, 02 August, 2005 00:44
>To: Grant FORSYTH
>Subject: GNSO Review
>
>
>
>Grant
>
>
>
>You will have seen Bruce's note about the GNSO review -- I am going to be
>responsible for putting that together from the ICANN side. I am collecting
>some
initial thoughts and would appreciate your input.
>
>
>
>Just to recap the timing first. We have to have ready for the VCR Board
>meeting the Terms of Reference that will then trigger the review to take
>place in early 2006. The exact timing is yet to be established but, based
>on instructions from JJ, I will need to have the report ready one month
>prior to Nov 30 to enable sufficient time to get the Board their proper
>papers. That means we have August, Sept and Oct to get initial thoughts,
>first draft and final draft ready. I will prepare a project map in the next
>couple of days that will include all these critical dates. I will circulate
>that when we have the early thoughts phase completed.
>
>
>
>As you know, the review is required
by the by-laws and the LUX board
>resolution which means that we can use input from all kinds of sources to
>inform the questions which need answering.
>
>
>
>I have put below the four sections into which I'm organizing early thoughts.
>Your input into any or all of those sections gratefully received.
>
>
>
>1. Operational - most objective of the categories. Based on facts and
>figures about voting patterns, trends, participation rates, numbers, types
>and kinds of meetings. (Glen is helping me here and we have just completed
>our conversation)
>
>2. Effectiveness -- partly objective/partly subjective. Need to look
>at time lines for consideration of issues. Need to also consider, once
>policy is made, is it implemented
easily, quickly. What compliance issues
>are there? What is balance between policy compliance and, for example, need
>for binding contract.
>
>3. Relationships - partly objective/partly subjective. Need to examine
>relationships with the board, with staff, with other SOs. Need to look at
>internal relationships within the structure of the GNSO (are the
>constituencies representative, transparent, effective at demonstrating
>positions/views/diversity of opinion). How does work get done; are the
>existing processes and procedures working and effective. What measures
>should we use to answer those questions? Need work here on identifying
>breakages in the system. For example, should there be closer/more
>supportive/more direct staff
intervention? Should there be broader
>constituency membership to spread consultation mechanisms?
>
>4. Perceptual - the most subjective of the four categories. Need
>questions around perceptions of inclusiveness, transparency, attitudes of
>external bodies \ and internal groupings like board, staff and other SOs.
>Measuring this (and then improving) is difficult but quite valuable.
>
>
>
>I am particularly interested, from your side, to hear about representation,
>plurality of views, openness of processes. I have been reviewing each of
>the GNSO constituencies to see how that is handled - each one is, of course,
>different!
>
>
>
>At this early stage I am sharing these thoughts with Council members some of
>whom I've been able to catch by
phone. I will then bring those responses
>together into a first draft. I am also using this model to seek views from
>the staff and others.
>
>
>
>I will not forward your responses and you can expect to see anonymised
>thoughts put into a more formal paper for public consumption a few weeks
>down the track. You can call me if you would prefer - numbers below.
>
>
>
>Kind regards.
>
>
>
>Liz
>
>
>
>Liz Williams
>
>Senior Policy Counselor
>
>ICANN - Brussels
>
>Tel: +32 2 234 7874
>
>Fax: +32 2 234 7848
>
>Mob: +61 414 26 9000
>
>
>