I have just been reviewing Liz Williams' GNSO Phase One paper again and I note that the following Recommendations from Patrick Sharry's review: Recommendation 10: The Chair of the GNSO Council and the VP Supporting Organizations should establish a service level agreement between the GNSO Council and ICANN management that specifies the amount and type of support that is to be provided. Where possible, this should include measures (eg turnaround times for legal opinion, delivery of reports by agreed dates, minutes posted within a certain number of days). The Chair should consult the Council to ensure the targets meet the needs of the Council and its taskforces. The VP Supporting Organizations and Chair of GNSO Council should meet quarterly to review performance measures and report these to the President. I suggest that this service level agreement be a high priority item for the first administrative call. Bruce, would you please ask staff to prepare a draft SLA for consideration and discussion on the first administrative call. I note the recommendation says that 'The Chair should consult the Council to ensure the targets meet the needs of the Council and its taskforces'. As a precursor to this consultation, I request that the staff review the timelines imposed by the PDP process and incorporate draft targets in the draft SLA which are consistent. Bruce, please confirm that you are OK with this and that you have actioned it as requested. Thanks, Alick -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alick Wilson Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2005 2:23 p.m. To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Administrative matters Colleagues I concur with Philip's concern that '... 17 out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented ...'. However, I question whether we are now constrained by '... lack of resource.' We now have three staff providing support. We have requested information about staff roles and responsibilities and time commitment to GNSO matters. In the absence of same, and until we have that information, I think it is reasonable to assume that we have three full time staff. This seems more than sufficient to make progress on those outstanding items. We need staff to prepare a list of all Council activities, with priorities, resource requirements, resource allocated, timeline and project plan. This list should include all substantive policy projects, contemplated or under action, and the 17 recommendations referred to above. Bruce, perhaps you could request that staff action this as above and add this to the list of agenda items for the forthcoming first administrative call. Thanks, Alick -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, 26 August 2005 10:32 p.m. To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] On the use of 'fairness' et al Avri, everything you say is correct but we need to consider practicality. 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 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. 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. Philip