I very much share Philip’s concerns as expressed below as well as the starting point he suggests to assess the GNSO’s structure and methods. Periods of introspection are always useful - we should certainly avoid the trap of floccinaucinihilipilification* - but we should not think that we have to start from scratch here. Lots have been done already.

Cheers,

Nik

* For the non-English speakers among us, please note that this word IS included in the “Oxford English Dictionary” (I just had to use it once J).

---

From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: jeudi 4 août 2005 9:22
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] GNSO Review

Before we all get carried away on great and good ideas on this review, can we agree on the scope of the review?

We have already done an ICANN evolution and reform process (ERP) - no one I HOPE - wants to repeat that in the context of the GNSO ?

We have already done a GNSO Council review and agreed actions as a result - no one I HOPE - wants to duplicate that ?

Therefore the scope question is surely:
Given the purpose of the GNSO,
Given the current structures / networks / methodology,
How effective are these structures / networks and methods?

Anything more - such as comparison to other models - I suggest is out of scope.
That may be relevant if we conclude structures / networks / methods are broken or useless, but that should inform a second tier of work ONCE the ineffective bits are identified.

If there is a proposal to repeat the evolution and reform process work for the GNSO, I plan a long holiday.

Philip