Liz
& fellow Councillors
Thank
you Liz and thank you Philip for your contribution to Liz's draft. The point you
have raised cover many of the specific points I would wish to
make.
1.
Rational
Please
forward to Council copies of any papers (I am presuming that every Board agenda
item has a paper supporting it) and/or section of the transcript from the Board
discussion leading to the Board's resolution tasking the development of the TOR.
This would provide invaluable context and greater understanding as to the
Board's expectations regarding the review
2.
Background
I
think it would be helpful to provide extracts of the original green and white
papers and the recent evolution and reform report that address the GNSO
(DNSO)
3.
Scope
I
preface my following comments with the expectation/understanding, that this
review is seeking opportunities to improve the workings of the
GNSO.
Thus
my generalised approach, would be something like:
a)
record how the GNSO (and its various elements) is working -
facts
b)
check this against the overall objective (ie. bottom up policy development) and
other relevant sub objectives (eg. diversity, etc) -
comparison
c)
identify impediments or opportunities for improvement -
identification
d)
possible courses of action, alternates/options for consideration -
recommendations
With
the above in mind, I think we need to be tighter in our language and not use
words like "fairness" and when talking about "best" we need to either tie
that to some criteria or stipulate (through the TOR) that the reviewer must
be very explicit in their choice, identification of and rational for
comparators.
There
are duplications in the questions between each of the sub sections (eg Authority
and effectiveness). These should be removed.
Just a
couple of notes on process:
-
Please can we have paragraph/bullet point numbering in all staff/policy
papers (including those commissioned from external
consultants)
- I
think we have planned to have direct engagement/cooperative working between
Council (or subset) and Board (or subset). I support this and would not wish to
see the staff put into a position of communicating between the Council and
Board. Thus the staff function in all this is to do as Liz is doing which is to
draft papers for Council (and then Council and Board)
consideration/consultation/modification/adoption - not to present the views of
either Council or Board to the other via papers.
- My
understanding is that the next version of Liz's "paper" will be a draft TOR -
presumably with accompanying annexes etc
Regards
Grant Forsyth
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