Thank you very much for sharing this draft. Please find attached some suggested edits to this document which are largely stylistic, and not substantive, in nature.
Thank you for your consideration.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Draft SSR2 letter from GNSO Council and Council motion
Local Time: 19 January 2018 3:41 AM
UTC Time: 19 January 2018 03:41
From: haforrestesq@gmail.com
To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, gnso-SECS <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Dear colleagues,
With thanks to the small team (Keith, Arsene, Carlos, Susan, me) that has been working on this since our December Council meeting, attached please find a draft letter to the SO/AC chairs on our current thinking on the SSR2-RT pause. This will be on our January agenda as a discussion item (ie, no motion/vote).
Please note I suggested in last week's SO/AC leaders' call the idea of bringing in an external facilitator. I think it is important that the RT be empowered to work through any issues (the SO/AC leaders conducted an anonymous survey of RT members soon after ICANN60, which raised a number of possible improvements, but little consistency across responses). I do not believe that the RT is best served by being asked/forced to implement some plan developed by the SO/ACs on their behalf, or - worse in my view - a plan developed by the SO/AC leaders or the Board Organisational Effectiveness Committee.
I will provide an update on developments within the SO/AC leadership during our meeting and will be very happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability. I am hopeful that we can agree on this communication to the SO/AC leaders, as it's timely and also reassures SSR2-RT of the GNSO Council's commitment to their efforts (ie, they have not been forgotten!).
Best wishes,
Heather Forrest