Dear all, I don't mean to confuse matters or prejudge the development and drafting work on the terms of reference, but FYI the original source of the text on the purpose of the review came from the ICANN bylaws: Section 4. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ICANN STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS 1. The Board shall cause a periodic review, if feasible no less frequently than every three years, of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. Available at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IV All the best, Maria -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:29 PM To: Ross Rader Cc: Liz Williams; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I think this is a better wording. One recommendation below: On 31 aug 2005, at 15.38, Ross Rader wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Proposed:
3.2 The GNSO Review is designed to analyse:
o the current and continued role of the GNSO in the ICANN structure,
s/continued/continuing/
o and recommend what changes in its structure or operations, or those of ICANN itself, may be desirable to improve its effectiveness.
a. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDFiENzUL36xoPd70RAo1NAJ9rMEEfkQhjFaV/6PD8ctgGJ07XmQCgvFV8 eMu5MlpnSE6Hk5OFK34DvIY= =fun6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----