Colleagues Thank you to everyone who has provided comments so far. Please find attached two documents. As per input from the conference call last week, I have separated out the background information and devised another document which looks more like a more formal TOR. Could I ask you to review it - the Chair has asked for comments to be in by Friday 2 Sept Brussels COB. He will then forward an updated document to the Board for 8 Sept once any additional comments are taken into account. On the current timeframe, this means that the Board will not receive the document seven days prior to any meeting. Any questions, come back to me. Kind regards. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31/08/2005 8:55 AM Liz Williams noted that;
Could I ask you to review it - the Chair has asked for comments to be in by Friday 2 Sept Brussels COB. He will then forward an updated document to the Board for 8 Sept once any additional comments are taken into account.
I have several other less substantive comments, but this one is significant enough to be submitted independently. I have a substantial objection to section 3.2 and would like to see it rephrased in substantially more positive and constructive terms. Current: 3.2. The GNSO Review is designed to determine: o whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, o and, if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. Proposed: 3.2 The GNSO Review is designed to analyse: o the current and continued role of the GNSO in the ICANN structure, o and recommend what changes in its structure or operations, or those of ICANN itself, may be desirable to improve its effectiveness. - -- Regards, -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) iD8DBQFDFbLA6sL06XjirooRAjYWAJwLaKzJz6yVcHj2uI7Cfur+GKhcswCeN9cR /NYr/gOAVYoF/3w+HSyI4Mo= =5CMY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I think this is a better wording. One recommendation below: On 31 aug 2005, at 15.38, Ross Rader wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Proposed:
3.2 The GNSO Review is designed to analyse:
o the current and continued role of the GNSO in the ICANN structure,
s/continued/continuing/
o and recommend what changes in its structure or operations, or those of ICANN itself, may be desirable to improve its effectiveness.
a. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDFiENzUL36xoPd70RAo1NAJ9rMEEfkQhjFaV/6PD8ctgGJ07XmQCgvFV8 eMu5MlpnSE6Hk5OFK34DvIY= =fun6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear all, I don't mean to confuse matters or prejudge the development and drafting work on the terms of reference, but FYI the original source of the text on the purpose of the review came from the ICANN bylaws: Section 4. PERIODIC REVIEW OF ICANN STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONS 1. The Board shall cause a periodic review, if feasible no less frequently than every three years, of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. Available at http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IV All the best, Maria -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:29 PM To: Ross Rader Cc: Liz Williams; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I think this is a better wording. One recommendation below: On 31 aug 2005, at 15.38, Ross Rader wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Proposed:
3.2 The GNSO Review is designed to analyse:
o the current and continued role of the GNSO in the ICANN structure,
s/continued/continuing/
o and recommend what changes in its structure or operations, or those of ICANN itself, may be desirable to improve its effectiveness.
a. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDFiENzUL36xoPd70RAo1NAJ9rMEEfkQhjFaV/6PD8ctgGJ07XmQCgvFV8 eMu5MlpnSE6Hk5OFK34DvIY= =fun6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'll be looking at this tonight. And providing any essential comments. Fully respecting that timelines are right, let me make a constructive suggestion regarding when the Board receives the "document". As I understand this situation, Liz, as the staff supporting this work item, has already sent the document to the Board in its earliest iteration. The Council has established a work program on this topic that Council is guiding, supported by staff. So, for this iteration, perhaps Bruce, you could consider the advisability of sending along a courtesy email to the Board advising them of the very tight lines, and noting the date when they will get the document. Since it is going to be discussed in an interactive and collegial manner, in the spirit of multi stakeholderism that embodies ICANN, the Board members and the Councilors will be able to interact and dialogue and discuss questions that the Board - or that we as Council have.. So, this isn't actually a document that they have to delve into in great detail before hand. Of course they need it a few days ahead. Yet, as a courtesy, and in keeping our Board informed, such an advisory note of the time line challenges may be useful. _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:56 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information Colleagues Thank you to everyone who has provided comments so far. Please find attached two documents. As per input from the conference call last week, I have separated out the background information and devised another document which looks more like a more formal TOR. Could I ask you to review it - the Chair has asked for comments to be in by Friday 2 Sept Brussels COB. He will then forward an updated document to the Board for 8 Sept once any additional comments are taken into account. On the current timeframe, this means that the Board will not receive the document seven days prior to any meeting. Any questions, come back to me. Kind regards. Liz Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels Tel: +32 2 234 7874 Fax: +32 2 234 7848 Mob: +61 414 26 9000
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Liz Williams -
Maria Farrell -
Marilyn Cade -
Ross Rader