RE: [council] GNSO Review: Council Meeting Thursday 25 August, 1 2:00 UTC
Liz & fellow Councillors Thank you Liz and thank you Philip for your contribution to Liz's draft. The point you have raised cover many of the specific points I would wish to make. 1. Rational Please forward to Council copies of any papers (I am presuming that every Board agenda item has a paper supporting it) and/or section of the transcript from the Board discussion leading to the Board's resolution tasking the development of the TOR. This would provide invaluable context and greater understanding as to the Board's expectations regarding the review 2. Background I think it would be helpful to provide extracts of the original green and white papers and the recent evolution and reform report that address the GNSO (DNSO) 3. Scope I preface my following comments with the expectation/understanding, that this review is seeking opportunities to improve the workings of the GNSO. Thus my generalised approach, would be something like: a) record how the GNSO (and its various elements) is working - facts b) check this against the overall objective (ie. bottom up policy development) and other relevant sub objectives (eg. diversity, etc) - comparison c) identify impediments or opportunities for improvement - identification d) possible courses of action, alternates/options for consideration - recommendations With the above in mind, I think we need to be tighter in our language and not use words like "fairness" and when talking about "best" we need to either tie that to some criteria or stipulate (through the TOR) that the reviewer must be very explicit in their choice, identification of and rational for comparators. There are duplications in the questions between each of the sub sections (eg Authority and effectiveness). These should be removed. Just a couple of notes on process: - Please can we have paragraph/bullet point numbering in all staff/policy papers (including those commissioned from external consultants) - I think we have planned to have direct engagement/cooperative working between Council (or subset) and Board (or subset). I support this and would not wish to see the staff put into a position of communicating between the Council and Board. Thus the staff function in all this is to do as Liz is doing which is to draft papers for Council (and then Council and Board) consideration/consultation/modification/adoption - not to present the views of either Council or Board to the other via papers. - My understanding is that the next version of Liz's "paper" will be a draft TOR - presumably with accompanying annexes etc Regards Grant Forsyth Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs TelstraClear Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads Private Bag 92143 AUCKLAND ph +64 9 912 5759 fx + 64 9 912 4077 Mb 029 912 5759
Dear all, In response to point 2 below, please find attached the Board paper on the GNSO review. All the best, Maria _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Grant FORSYTH Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:17 AM To: 'Liz Williams'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'Philip Sheppard' Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Review: Council Meeting Thursday 25 August, 1 2:00 UTC Liz & fellow Councillors Thank you Liz and thank you Philip for your contribution to Liz's draft. The point you have raised cover many of the specific points I would wish to make. 1. Rational Please forward to Council copies of any papers (I am presuming that every Board agenda item has a paper supporting it) and/or section of the transcript from the Board discussion leading to the Board's resolution tasking the development of the TOR. This would provide invaluable context and greater understanding as to the Board's expectations regarding the review 2. Background I think it would be helpful to provide extracts of the original green and white papers and the recent evolution and reform report that address the GNSO (DNSO) 3. Scope I preface my following comments with the expectation/understanding, that this review is seeking opportunities to improve the workings of the GNSO. Thus my generalised approach, would be something like: a) record how the GNSO (and its various elements) is working - facts b) check this against the overall objective (ie. bottom up policy development) and other relevant sub objectives (eg. diversity, etc) - comparison c) identify impediments or opportunities for improvement - identification d) possible courses of action, alternates/options for consideration - recommendations With the above in mind, I think we need to be tighter in our language and not use words like "fairness" and when talking about "best" we need to either tie that to some criteria or stipulate (through the TOR) that the reviewer must be very explicit in their choice, identification of and rational for comparators. There are duplications in the questions between each of the sub sections (eg Authority and effectiveness). These should be removed. Just a couple of notes on process: - Please can we have paragraph/bullet point numbering in all staff/policy papers (including those commissioned from external consultants) - I think we have planned to have direct engagement/cooperative working between Council (or subset) and Board (or subset). I support this and would not wish to see the staff put into a position of communicating between the Council and Board. Thus the staff function in all this is to do as Liz is doing which is to draft papers for Council (and then Council and Board) consideration/consultation/modification/adoption - not to present the views of either Council or Board to the other via papers. - My understanding is that the next version of Liz's "paper" will be a draft TOR - presumably with accompanying annexes etc Regards Grant Forsyth Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs TelstraClear Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads Private Bag 92143 AUCKLAND ph +64 9 912 5759 fx + 64 9 912 4077 Mb 029 912 5759
participants (2)
-
Grant FORSYTH -
Maria Farrell