Ross: I think you raise a very important point, and I hope that we will be able to discuss this tomorrow in more depth. In an effort to contribute to this thread, I would like to try to answer your question. I believe the goals and expectations of the GNSO are clearly defined in the bylaws, specifically that the GNSO shall be the "policy-development body ... for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains." Similar to an employee evaluation process, the party directly responsible for receiving the work of the employee (i.e. the ICANN Board) should have a direct role in the evaluation process of the employee (GNSO). Moreover, I believe this interaction needs to be at the very beginning of the process in accessing the performance of the employee. Only after these questions have been answered is it truly possible to undertake an independent evaluation process and recommend changes. My point is, if the Board doesn't comment at the outset on what is working and what is not, how would any independent evaluation undertake a meaningful review with no reference points? As someone that has spent a number of years at both the Board and GNSO constituency level, these are the two fundamental questions which I believe all Board members should be asked: (1) are you satisfied with the output of the GNSO Policy recommendations and (2) are you satisfied with the process of how the GNSO goes about Policy recommendations. Now if the answer to both of these questions are yes, then we really do not need to start with some of the broader fundamental questions that I believe this process has started off with. Moreover, I am concerned that some of the questions are so broad, that it potentially undermines the first part of an constructive process that Patrick Sherry undertook last year. So if the council believes that this would be a constructive process I would encourage council to instruct staff to undertake a formalized Q&A process with the ICANN Board ASAP to provide specific reference points of what is and is not working. Comments, questions? Best regards, Michael D. Palage -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:56 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft agenda for GNSO teleconference on terms of reference for the GNSO review - 25 August 2005 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bruce - a quick question regarding the agenda...

(1) Review the goals and expected outcomes of the GNSO review, at both the Council and constituency level

Whose goals and expectations will we be reviewing? I have mentioned to others that I have an expectation that this process will be a constructive, bi-directional communication that will hopefully provide the GNSO with feedback and direction regarding structural and procedural improvements that will help it serve and work within the ICANN community in a more effective manner. To that end, it would be helpful to understand and discuss not only what our goals and expectations are for this process, but more importantly, those of others (the other SOs, the staff and primarily, the Board having commissioned this review in the first place). Thanks in advance, -rwr "Every contrivance of man, every tool, every instrument, every utensil, every article designed for use, of each and every kind, evolved from very simple beginnings." - Robert Collier Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com My Blogware: http://www.byte.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP) iD8DBQFDDIqS6sL06XjirooRAq7AAJ4z/bISjDjqmJX+LeiW8IaMwyYwzwCdHMet E0Z2SrEPakong2YbY9kdUek= =yy7d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----