Thanks Avri, Wise input. Again, I find myself having very similar views to you on this one - MSI Panel / GNSO interaction. It seems to me that we should engage with the work of the panel, absorb proposals where appropriate and similarly push back where proposals are difficult to integrate. I have had a 45 minute call with Beth Novek and she was very interested to engage with and hear from us. As I see it, there are a number of (non-exclusive) options including: 1. Further direct dialogue between Beth & myself. 2. A written submission / response from the GNSO Council 3. An invitation to meet with the Council in Singapore Please note that the remit they have been given means they are working to a very aggressive timetable. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org] Sent: 06 February 2014 17:33 To: 'Council' Subject: Re: [council] framing the discussion on SGs and role of the Council SNIP ... an opinion on MSI Panel / GNSO interaction while I was probing one of Mikey points.

I only intended to ensure that we didn't drop the original topic relating

to

the work of the MSI panel and our interaction / engagement with that.

I think we need to treat it as possible input for our own continuing improvement path. with ICANN spending oodles of bucks on this process, we shouldn't disregard the possibility that they do say something useful. Despite the 'neoclassical style' of their prose. While reading it, and listening to the presentation, it put me in mind of a infomercial for a Branded social improvement product. Nonetheless, I think that many of the the techniques they suggest are things we could consider and possibly even build in pilot projects on some of our processes. But we need to understand them as tools for the purposes of the GNSO and not as solutions in search of a problem. I think it is important that we do not make the mistake they appear to be making, and missing out on the pony because it is hard to find ones way through hay (or something like that). I think a good conversation with them, or those of the MSI panel who are about in Singapore, is a good idea. It also might be good to organize ourselves (a drafting team?) to offer a critical analysis of their output. avri

Jonathan