Thanks for responding Olga. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:59 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; Adrian Kinderis Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Questions for chair Hi, in relation with the questions sent by Adrian and Wolf, these are some comments and I am happy to further explain these ideas during the conference call next Friday. Adrian, my mission as a NonCom Appointee is to participate in GNSO with a neutral perspective placing the broad public interest ahead of any particular interests. In my view, a chair is a facilitator and a coordinator of the work of the GNSO, including all different interests and perspectives of all the council members and their stakeholder groups as well. As you may recall, we NCAs could be also non voting members of the GNSO, which is the case of Andrei now. So there could be even a non voting chair. I have shared working teams, drafting teams and several other activities in my three years serving the GNSO with almos all of the council members and dialogue has been always open, so I am happy to answer any other question or doubt you may have. I would apprecialte if you could clarify the concept "platform" included in your question. Wolf, for me the key issue in the future of GNSO is broaden its perspective through outreach. In the Constituency Operations Working Team that I have chaired as part of the GNSO restructuring process, we have produced a very interesting document about outreach that is now under final revision by the OSC and will soon will be available for GNSO revision. (Special thanks to Debbie Hughes that chaired the subworking team, Krista Papac, Claudio DiGangi, Rafik Dammak, Tony Harris and Michael Young for their active participation in drafting the document). If GNSO could broaden participation including a more diverse perspective and more active participation from a wider universe, then it would be easier to have more participants from different stakeholder groups into different projects. As we learned in the prioritization working group, where you were a very active member, all projects have their impact and are relevant and interesting for different councilors and for their stakeholdergroups. So if more representatives can actively participate in different activities then prioritization could be more a managerial issue than a problem of administrating lack of time and resources. In relation with your question on how to "avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened?", again I think that the answer is having a GNSO with a broader perspective, and this could be achieved through an outreach effort. I will be happy to explain this further or answer other questions next Thrusday. Best regards Olga 2010/11/16 <KnobenW@telekom.de> I've 2 questions to both candidates: 1. I'd appreciate a statement from regarding action item 1. from our last call (prioritization, see attached). Which specific efforts do you have in mind in order to strengthen the council's ability and effectiveness in organizing its work? 2. With respect to the fact that the board recently took decision on VI without having received a specific council recommendation: which measures do you have in mind to avoid the council's position in the policy development process becoming more and more weakened? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Please note the following action items from our Council meeting one week ago: 1. Assuming we dispense with the prioritization effort, Councilors are encouraged to communicate ideas on the Council mailing list on how to make decisions regarding whether or not to proceed on a project; the aim would be to compile a list of factors that can be used to make choices, and over time develop criteria for choosing projects and work items.