Dear all, as I promised, I used Grant’s
version so that we can begin to get the comments into one single document for
consideration. I couldn’t make a COB
I do have lots of question and a few
concerns. I don’t support incorporating the work of the PDP revision into
this review of the GNSO. My comments are apparent in the body of the document. I
also note that the consultant should not be allowed to expand the work as
he/she sees fit and provided a suggestion on how any “suggested changes”
in the work could be considered. There are several areas which need to be tightened
up considerably so that the consultant knows where to look, for instance,
merely reviewing “other organizations” is too broad an assignment.
One could spend a lot of time interviewing “other organizations”
and while interesting, quite expensive to do… budget is everything as
they say.
That reminds me that we are still waiting
for the information about the budget. Perhaps we can see that early next week.
Have a good week end, all.
Regards, Marilyn
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Grant FORSYTH
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005
7:34 AM
To: 'Liz Williams';
council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Review
TOR + Background Information
Liz et al
Attached is a marked up version of your
TOR
Besides the specific comments marked up I
provide the following additional comments:
Formatting
1 It would be desirable if all GNSO
staff reports/papers etc conformed to an agreed standard layout with a minimum
set of information (which I have provided here as mark ups)
2 please ensure all paragraphs and bullets
are numbered
3. Given that ICANN is an international
body, I recommend that dates be provided in full to avoid confusion. IE 1
September 2005, not 1/9/05 or 9/1/05. Dates of documents (unless it is
explicitly noted as the "print" date) should not use the MS Word
"insert date option", but rather be typed in. This avoids the
original date of the document changing.
4 I personally don't think the moving
of the questions/analysis to footers works. My preference is that they be moved
to an annex
I look forward advancing the development
of the TOR on the call.
Regards
Manager
Industry & Regulatory Affairs
TelstraClear
Cnr
Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private
Bag 92143
AUCKLAND
ph +64
9 912 5759
fx +
64 9 912 4077
Mb 029
912 5759
-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Williams
[mailto:liz.williams@icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, 01 September, 2005
00:56
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] GNSO Review TOR
+ Background Information
Colleagues
Thank you to everyone who has provided comments so
far. Please find attached two documents. As per input from the
conference call last week, I have separated out the background information and
devised another document which looks more like a more formal TOR.
Could I ask you to review it - the Chair has asked for
comments to be in by Friday 2 Sept Brussels COB. He will then
forward an updated document to the Board for 8 Sept once any additional
comments are taken into account.
On the current timeframe, this means that the Board will not
receive the document seven days prior to any meeting.
Any questions, come back to me.
Kind regards.
Liz
Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN -
Tel: +32 2 234 7874
Fax: +32 2 234 7848
Mob: +61 414 26 9000