Dear Councilors and SG/C Chairs, Please see the message below. As a reminder, we would like to request your input on the questions below by 15 March so that the Council may be able to take a decision on the path forward during the next Council meeting on 24 March. As noted in Philippe’s email of 20 January (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-January/024395.html), the staff support team has worked with the Council leadership team on a more detailed proposal for a GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement that you will find attached to this email. The objective of the framework is to put in place an approach and structure that allows for the continuous scoping and execution of projects that are focused on GNSO structural, procedural and process improvements. The document analyzes and proposes a number of specific assignments in relation to the different projects that pertain to the scope of this effort from the Action Decision Radar (ADR) (https://community.icann.org/x/14vzC). It also proposes a possible way of organizing these assignments into task forces of a thematic nature. The document does not opine on the priority order in which these are expected to be addressed. Following your review of this document, we would like to request your input on the following: 1. With the details provided, does this framework approach make sense for dealing with some of the immediate priorities on the ADR as well as future projects that relate to structural, procedural and process improvements? If not, why not and what would be your proposed alternative? 2. Are there any aspects of the framework that can be further enhanced? If so, please provide further details. 3. Are there any assignments that are missing or should be modified? 4. Does the grouping of assignments make sense or is there another way in which assignments should be organized? We look forward to receiving your feedback. Kind regards, Julie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund via council <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 3:18 PM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, "Selli, Claudia" <claudia.selli@intl.att.com>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben@t-online.de>, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns@gmail.com>, Raoul Plommer <plommer@gmail.com>, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix@gmail.com>, "aheineman@godaddy.com" <aheineman@godaddy.com>, "Demetriou, Samantha" <sdemetriou@verisign.com>, "chair@rysg.info" <chair@rysg.info>, Sue Schuler <secretariat@rysg.info>, Zoe Bonython <secretariat@icannregistrars.org> Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org>, "gnso-chairs@icann.org" <gnso-chairs@icann.org> Subject: [council] For review - GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Dear Councilors and SG/C Chairs, As noted in Philippe’s email of 20 January (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-January/024395.html), the staff support team has worked with the Council leadership team on a more detailed proposal for a GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement that you will find attached to this email. The objective of the framework is to put in place an approach and structure that allows for the continuous scoping and execution of projects that are focused on GNSO structural, procedural and process improvements. The document analyzes and proposes a number of specific assignments in relation to the different projects that pertain to the scope of this effort from the Action Decision Radar (ADR) (https://community.icann.org/x/14vzC). It also proposes a possible way of organizing these assignments into task forces of a thematic nature. The document does not opine on the priority order in which these are expected to be addressed. Following your review of this document, we would like to request your input on the following: 1. With the details provided, does this framework approach make sense for dealing with some of the immediate priorities on the ADR as well as future projects that relate to structural, procedural and process improvements? If not, why not and what would be your proposed alternative? 2. Are there any aspects of the framework that can be further enhanced? If so, please provide further details. 3. Are there any assignments that are missing or should be modified? 4. Does the grouping of assignments make sense or is there another way in which assignments should be organized? In order to move forward with consideration of the framework approach, and especially being able to tackle the different projects that are high on the ADR, we would like to request your input by 15 March so that the Council may be able to take a decision on the path forward during the next Council meeting on 24 March. If it is deemed helpful, the staff support team is also more than willing to set up a call to walk through the document and answer any questions you may have. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director