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
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