Dear Council Chair Thanks very much for the Council Agenda. I see two areas where it is going to be important to have ICANN senior staff/additional resources available to the Council for the upcoming call, and ask that you extend invitations to them to join the Council call, if this is not already the case. First, in reviewing the Minutes from our last Council call, there was a request for assistance/additional work to the Assistant General Counsel that were initially accepted, with several updates along the way by staff that the materials were under development, delayed, but forthcoming, etc., and then finally, it was announced to Council after the Council call, by email that the requested support materials were not to be supplied. Regrettably, on the Council call, there was no indication by staff of this decision, so that Council might have modified its work request in an informed manner. I am not commenting on the decision not to provide the requested document, but the communication and collegiality needed to problem solve with Council on what can be provided. I know that we are ever evolving and improving our working interactions. Thus, as I view the Council and the staff as partners in support of policy development, I would suggest that improvements in timeliness and responsiveness in keeping Council up to date that a requested work item will not be provided could become a common and shared objective for our future work together. Having made that statement, nevertheless, given that we are discussing the PDPs, and the progression of work in particular on PDP Feb 06, I would appreciate having the Assistant General Counsel join the call to be available to support the discussion. Secondly, as we are discussing the GNSO Review as an agenda item, let me thank you for putting the topic of progressing the broader GNSO involvement in the GNSO review on the agenda. This deserves some thoughtful discussion and probably a further discussion on Sunday, in Sao Paolo, of the Council. It will be helpful to hear an update from Denise Michel, to launch this discussion on our next Council call. While I see some enthusiasm from some constituency reps to start voting on piecemeal parts of the LSE review, I recall form the conf. call briefings, and from the Board that the LSE Review is one input, and that broader inputs from the community and from the Constituencies are needed to have informed consideration about evolution and improvements in the GNSO. Thus, I am not in favor of voting on piecemeal items. I am aware of the long standing work items from the Council review that need to be taken into account, along with the LSE independent review. I'd like us to have a rationalized document that brings the results of both 'reviews' into alignment. Perhaps Denise can task her team to provide such a resource, ahead of the Council call, as a resource document. I take note of the comments from some that there are members of the Council or Constituencies who are afraid that others are afraid of change, or will resist change for personal reasons. I assume we could all have that suspicion of each other, of others in other SOs, or even of Board members or Staff. However, I want to have a different vision: I have faith that everyone who works at ICANN cares deeply about its success, however they define success from their own view of the 'elephant', taking note of the parable of the blind men and the elephant encounter. I note long hours of volunteering, hard work to examine issues, and even personal funding of travel to ICANN meetings by so many in the community of stakeholders, both within the Constituencies and beyond, in the At Large, Board, and in other SOs. I am looking forward to hearing from Denise what the progress is on development of ideas on a balanced process can be developed to take into account input from the presently involved, from some expertise not yet engaged, from Board members, and even from the GAC and other SOs, that can inform improvements and changes within this SO as is appropriate to support its role in ICANN and the continuing changes and challenges of ICANN's success. It may be that there is a useful cross SO process of inputs and idea generation as well. So, as one Councilor, I'd like to hear from Denise what proposed approaches might be, and discuss rationally and professionally, from the perspective of councilors, some ideas. I take note that the constituencies also often have elected officers, and that it would be inappropriate to supersede discussions within constituencies that can involve their members and officers. Thus, I suspect that this is not the sole discussion that is needed, and would welcome hearing how or what ideas exist to have engagement across the SO as a whole. Finally, can we move this topic up on the agenda, since it is of considerable interest and importance. Best regards, Marilyn Cade, BC Councilor