Hi, To change the subject a little, let me address some of the other themes in your message. In many cases, what I have is questions. On 26 aug 2005, at 12.32, Philip Sheppard wrote:
The concern of myself and other Council members is to ensure the GNSO review is done well but does not grow out of proportion to our prime objective of policy development. The more comprehensive the review and the more ill-defined its scope, the less resource (time and money) we have for this objective.
I don't understand how a comprehensive review is more ill-defined. Also isn't this done by an outside body. In which case how does it impinge on our ability to achieve our primary objective, which I assume remains the creation, updating and monitoring of ICANN policy and the fulfillment of requirements for improving GNSO/gTLD practice.
I am concerned that we are today launching a GNSO review at a time when 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented due to lack of resource.
How is the council going about responding to these 17 unresolved items. Do we have teams or working groups assigned to each of them? I have been on a few calls so far and I do not remember, though perhaps I did not recognize, a time when we went through action items and status updates from working groups engaged in these issues?
If we end up in 2006 with a list of 20 new recommendations that are also not implemented, the effectiveness of the GNSO will be unchanged.
Two thoughts on this. I would hope that we could have completed, or at least initiated solutions for, the current 17 items long before the end of 2006. And if there are another 20 improvements that we (or rather the council at that time) should make, wouldn't it be better to know what these were so that the council could start working on them? I know this may be easy for me to say as a newcomer who is not currently repsonsible for any action items. But I figure I am also fair game for task assignment. a.