Thanks for your quick action. The BGC report structured its recommendations under 5 main categories:
1. Adopting a WG model
2. Revising the PDP (Policy Development Process)
3. Restructuring the GNSO Council
4. Enhancing constituencies
5. Improving Coordination with ICANN structures
It might be useful in supplying feedback to the BGC to follow this same structure.
Thus, we might say that the GNSO generally supports reforms described in categories 2, 4 and 5? Is this a correct reading of your suggested starting point? Or do we agree only on parts of 2, 4 and 5?
----- Original Message ----
From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:03:49 AM
Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
As agreed on
yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man"
listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council
as a whole.
Given the deadline
is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move
on.
Not surprisingly
those listed are ones seeking:
- improvements in
policy development and timeline flexibility,
- improvements in
communications,
- improvements in
outreach
- greater support
for constituencies.
I have left out
proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing
views.
On working groups, I
am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for
much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for EVERY
issue before us would be too inflexible.
I hope I have
captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by
November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final
version.
Comments can be as
simple as - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the
proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good
to share.
Philip