Thank you very much Olga.  I wonder whether we should also request comments on the process used at the same time.  What do others think?

In case there is support for an amendment like this, Ken would you please draft an amendment and I will make it if appropriate.

Chuck

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 3:40 PM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: [council] Prioritization Process - Motion

Hi,

I am sending the folowing motion for your consideration.

Best regards

Olga

GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Re: Work Prioritization)

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted a resolution and timeline to conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX) recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT);

WHEREAS, the adopted timeline outlined four major process steps the first three of which have been completed as follows:

1) Step 1:  ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to the GNSO Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List (v1.0), including a Cover Letter, on 30 April 2010 [Council approved on 20 May 2010]

2) Step 2:  Eighteen Councilors and one Liaison (19 total) submitted individual Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects (approved in Step 1) on or before 9 June (deadline extended from 7 June), which were then successfully processed and aggregated by Staff for input to Step 3;

3) Step 3:  The GNSO Council held a Work Prioritization group discussion session on 19 June 2010 in Brussels and successfully finalized a set of Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO Work Prioritization Value Ratings finalized in its group discussion session held on 19 June 2010 and directs Staff to publish those Value Ratings on the GNSO website according to Step 4 of the adopted timeline.