Wolf-Ulrich, Amr, all, I¹ve made some updates to the letter which aim to capture your input (see attached). Please suggest alternative language if this does not correctly capture the points made. Best regards, Marika From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday 21 April 2016 at 07:02 To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis Hi Wolf-Ulrich. 1. Shouldn¹t the letter be addressed to the OEC chair? ‹ Good catch, I agree. 2. Do we expect action/approval from the OEC or board re starting the implementation planning? Then we should express it. ‹ Yes, we should establish this expectation Thanks‹ J. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:54 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis Thanks Marika, 1. Shouldn¹t the letter be addressed to the OEC chair? 2. Do we expect action/approval from the OEC or board re starting the implementation planning? Then we should express it. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Marika Konings <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:45 AM To: GNSO Council List <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis Dear All, Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter to the Board¹s Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party¹s Feasibility and Prioritisation Analysis of the GNSO Review recommendations. As you will note, placeholder language has been included to accommodate any additional comments GNSO Council members may want to include concerning the feasibility and priority of the GNSO Review recommendations, as discussed during the Council meeting. If you want to add any comments in relation to the feasibility and prioritisation of the recommendations, please provide those at the latest by Friday 22 April. As noted during the Council meeting as well as pointed out in the draft letter, the next phase of work will focus on the development of the implementation plan so any comments related to that aspect of the process should be reserved for the next phase. Thanks, Marika

Thanks, Amr. Could you clarify how you would like to include this input as part of the annex to the letter? Or you envision that the whole excel document is included as an annex? Would you like me to list the # of the recommendation and underneath it the different comments? However, in any case, it probably does require those that have been associated with the comments confirm that they would like this input transmitted to the OEC as these were raised during the webinar and may not have necessarily been intended to be conveyed to the OEC at this stage (should the comments be limited to Council members as this is a Council letter?)? Also, as you and others review the proposed comments for inclusion, I would like to encourage you to make sure that these comments focus on feasibility and priority - implementation comments / concerns are for the next phase of the process. Best regards, Marika On 22/04/16 14:22, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi Marika and all,

Gratitude for this. The letter seems pretty good to me.

For my part, I've done the best I could without delaying this issue too much to accumulate the feedback received during the webinar, which was held on April 12th. For easy reference, I¹ve added columns to the spreadsheet containing the GNSO Review Working Party¹s assessment to show these along each of the relevant recommendations. I hope that I have not missed or misinterpreted any of the feedback provided. The feedback accumulated concerns the independent examiner¹s recommendations 7, 21, 23, 32, 35 and 36.

Also note that the attached assessment/prioritising of recommendations does not show the change in color-coding for recommendation 21 from ³Red² to ³Yellow², along with the addition of a low priority. This change was a result of the feedback provided, as well as the ensuing amendment to the motion by which the Council adopted the Working Party¹s assessment.

I hope this is somehow helpful.

Thanks.

Amr

Thanks, Amr for your response. My understanding is that the staff supporting the OEC will also be providing a summary of the feedback received during the webinar as one of the public inputs that has been received throughout this process so the question is whether you and other Council members are of the view that it would also be worth including these as part of the transmittal letter. Do note that the letter already refers to the webinar and includes a link to the recording - maybe that is sufficient as in that way, there is no need to confirm the comments that have been attributed to different people, as the OEC can review the recording instead (note, I have seen that the transcript is now also available so we could include that link as well)? Looking forward to receiving your feedback, Marika On 26/04/16 05:19, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi Marika,

With the exception of the comments made regarding the revised recommendation 23, I would say that the comments all address the feasibility of implementation, one way or another. Maybe not so much priority.

And to answer your questions, I only included the comments in the spreadsheet for the benefit of fellow councillors. I just wanted to make it easy for anyone reviewing these comments now to be able to cross-check them against the appropriate Westlake recommendations and the associated working party assessments. I still believe that if these are included, that they should be an annex to the working party’s feedback. I have no preference regarding this being done using this format, or any other. Perhaps one that is a little tidier than what I’ve done. :)

And yes…, ideally, it would be good to confirm with each of the commenters that they wish for their feedback during the webinar to be included here, and that their comments have actually been captured correctly. Several comments were made by fellow councillors, but there are more from other GNSO community members. Towards the end of the webinar, a comment was raised requesting that all this input be included in whatever the GNSO Council considers during its deliberations, and there seemed to be agreement during the webinar that this be done (or at least, there were no objections). This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of missing comments during the discussion we had on the amendment to the motion the Council used to adopt the working party assessment. I will note though that at least one of the commenters had to drop off the webinar before this came up, so double-checking with each of them is not a bad idea at all.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 25, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks, Amr. Could you clarify how you would like to include this input as part of the annex to the letter? Or you envision that the whole excel document is included as an annex? Would you like me to list the # of the recommendation and underneath it the different comments? However, in any case, it probably does require those that have been associated with the comments confirm that they would like this input transmitted to the OEC as these were raised during the webinar and may not have necessarily been intended to be conveyed to the OEC at this stage (should the comments be limited to Council members as this is a Council letter?)? Also, as you and others review the proposed comments for inclusion, I would like to encourage you to make sure that these comments focus on feasibility and priority - implementation comments / concerns are for the next phase of the process.

Best regards,

Marika

On 22/04/16 14:22, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi Marika and all,

Gratitude for this. The letter seems pretty good to me.

For my part, I've done the best I could without delaying this issue too much to accumulate the feedback received during the webinar, which was held on April 12th. For easy reference, I¹ve added columns to the spreadsheet containing the GNSO Review Working Party¹s assessment to show these along each of the relevant recommendations. I hope that I have not missed or misinterpreted any of the feedback provided. The feedback accumulated concerns the independent examiner¹s recommendations 7, 21, 23, 32, 35 and 36.

Also note that the attached assessment/prioritising of recommendations does not show the change in color-coding for recommendation 21 from ³Red² to ³Yellow², along with the addition of a low priority. This change was a result of the feedback provided, as well as the ensuing amendment to the motion by which the Council adopted the Working Party¹s assessment.

I hope this is somehow helpful.

Thanks.

Amr

Correct, OEC staff support confirmed that they will provide the OEC with a summary of the feedback received. Based on this confirmation, are you (and others) fine with the letter being submitted in its current format (see attached)? Best regards, Marika On 26/04/16 07:31, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi,

This all sounds pretty good to me. The objective here to me is to be sure that the OEC is made aware of all the feedback that has been provided. It doesn’t really matter to me how they get the information, as long as they do get it.

So if the OEC staff support is prepping a summary of the feedback, I believe that would do (along with our reference to the webinar). However, I would prefer to no rely solely on the recording/transcripts as a means of transmitting this info.

Also, one of the main reasons I felt that the Council should include all this feedback in its own communique to the OEC, is because the amendment to the motion the Council used to adopt the working party assessment was selective in incorporating feedback from the webinar. Granted, the only feedback taken into consideration by the amended motion was the only feedback that resulted in a change to one of the outputs of the working party. So again, my personal view is that it matters more to me that the OEC receives the necessary information. Less important how they receive it, and from whom.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 26, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks, Amr for your response. My understanding is that the staff supporting the OEC will also be providing a summary of the feedback received during the webinar as one of the public inputs that has been received throughout this process so the question is whether you and other Council members are of the view that it would also be worth including these as part of the transmittal letter. Do note that the letter already refers to the webinar and includes a link to the recording - maybe that is sufficient as in that way, there is no need to confirm the comments that have been attributed to different people, as the OEC can review the recording instead (note, I have seen that the transcript is now also available so we could include that link as well)?

Looking forward to receiving your feedback,

Marika

On 26/04/16 05:19, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi Marika,

With the exception of the comments made regarding the revised recommendation 23, I would say that the comments all address the feasibility of implementation, one way or another. Maybe not so much priority.

And to answer your questions, I only included the comments in the spreadsheet for the benefit of fellow councillors. I just wanted to make it easy for anyone reviewing these comments now to be able to cross-check them against the appropriate Westlake recommendations and the associated working party assessments. I still believe that if these are included, that they should be an annex to the working party’s feedback. I have no preference regarding this being done using this format, or any other. Perhaps one that is a little tidier than what I’ve done. :)

And yes…, ideally, it would be good to confirm with each of the commenters that they wish for their feedback during the webinar to be included here, and that their comments have actually been captured correctly. Several comments were made by fellow councillors, but there are more from other GNSO community members. Towards the end of the webinar, a comment was raised requesting that all this input be included in whatever the GNSO Council considers during its deliberations, and there seemed to be agreement during the webinar that this be done (or at least, there were no objections). This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of missing comments during the discussion we had on the amendment to the motion the Council used to adopt the working party assessment. I will note though that at least one of the commenters had to drop off the webinar before this came up, so double-checking with each of them is not a bad idea at all.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 25, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks, Amr. Could you clarify how you would like to include this input as part of the annex to the letter? Or you envision that the whole excel document is included as an annex? Would you like me to list the # of the recommendation and underneath it the different comments? However, in any case, it probably does require those that have been associated with the comments confirm that they would like this input transmitted to the OEC as these were raised during the webinar and may not have necessarily been intended to be conveyed to the OEC at this stage (should the comments be limited to Council members as this is a Council letter?)? Also, as you and others review the proposed comments for inclusion, I would like to encourage you to make sure that these comments focus on feasibility and priority - implementation comments / concerns are for the next phase of the process.

Best regards,

Marika

On 22/04/16 14:22, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi Marika and all,

Gratitude for this. The letter seems pretty good to me.

For my part, I've done the best I could without delaying this issue too much to accumulate the feedback received during the webinar, which was held on April 12th. For easy reference, I¹ve added columns to the spreadsheet containing the GNSO Review Working Party¹s assessment to show these along each of the relevant recommendations. I hope that I have not missed or misinterpreted any of the feedback provided. The feedback accumulated concerns the independent examiner¹s recommendations 7, 21, 23, 32, 35 and 36.

Also note that the attached assessment/prioritising of recommendations does not show the change in color-coding for recommendation 21 from ³Red² to ³Yellow², along with the addition of a low priority. This change was a result of the feedback provided, as well as the ensuing amendment to the motion by which the Council adopted the Working Party¹s assessment.

I hope this is somehow helpful.

Thanks.

Amr

Yes, that is correct. Please find the final version attached. I’ll work with the leadership team to get this letter submitted to the OEC. Best regards, Marika On 27/04/16 05:12, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi,

Yes, I have no objection to this letter being sent on behalf of the Council. And if my understanding is correct, and we will not be sending any additional feedback, I’m assuming that the bracketed paragraph 3 in the letter is no longer necessary? Is that right?

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 26, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Correct, OEC staff support confirmed that they will provide the OEC with a summary of the feedback received. Based on this confirmation, are you (and others) fine with the letter being submitted in its current format (see attached)?

Best regards,

Marika

On 26/04/16 07:31, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

This all sounds pretty good to me. The objective here to me is to be sure that the OEC is made aware of all the feedback that has been provided. It doesn’t really matter to me how they get the information, as long as they do get it.

So if the OEC staff support is prepping a summary of the feedback, I believe that would do (along with our reference to the webinar). However, I would prefer to no rely solely on the recording/transcripts as a means of transmitting this info.

Also, one of the main reasons I felt that the Council should include all this feedback in its own communique to the OEC, is because the amendment to the motion the Council used to adopt the working party assessment was selective in incorporating feedback from the webinar. Granted, the only feedback taken into consideration by the amended motion was the only feedback that resulted in a change to one of the outputs of the working party. So again, my personal view is that it matters more to me that the OEC receives the necessary information. Less important how they receive it, and from whom.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 26, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks, Amr for your response. My understanding is that the staff supporting the OEC will also be providing a summary of the feedback received during the webinar as one of the public inputs that has been received throughout this process so the question is whether you and other Council members are of the view that it would also be worth including these as part of the transmittal letter. Do note that the letter already refers to the webinar and includes a link to the recording - maybe that is sufficient as in that way, there is no need to confirm the comments that have been attributed to different people, as the OEC can review the recording instead (note, I have seen that the transcript is now also available so we could include that link as well)?

Looking forward to receiving your feedback,

Marika

On 26/04/16 05:19, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi Marika,

With the exception of the comments made regarding the revised recommendation 23, I would say that the comments all address the feasibility of implementation, one way or another. Maybe not so much priority.

And to answer your questions, I only included the comments in the spreadsheet for the benefit of fellow councillors. I just wanted to make it easy for anyone reviewing these comments now to be able to cross-check them against the appropriate Westlake recommendations and the associated working party assessments. I still believe that if these are included, that they should be an annex to the working party’s feedback. I have no preference regarding this being done using this format, or any other. Perhaps one that is a little tidier than what I’ve done. :)

And yes…, ideally, it would be good to confirm with each of the commenters that they wish for their feedback during the webinar to be included here, and that their comments have actually been captured correctly. Several comments were made by fellow councillors, but there are more from other GNSO community members. Towards the end of the webinar, a comment was raised requesting that all this input be included in whatever the GNSO Council considers during its deliberations, and there seemed to be agreement during the webinar that this be done (or at least, there were no objections). This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of missing comments during the discussion we had on the amendment to the motion the Council used to adopt the working party assessment. I will note though that at least one of the commenters had to drop off the webinar before this came up, so double-checking with each of them is not a bad idea at all.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 25, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks, Amr. Could you clarify how you would like to include this input as part of the annex to the letter? Or you envision that the whole excel document is included as an annex? Would you like me to list the # of the recommendation and underneath it the different comments? However, in any case, it probably does require those that have been associated with the comments confirm that they would like this input transmitted to the OEC as these were raised during the webinar and may not have necessarily been intended to be conveyed to the OEC at this stage (should the comments be limited to Council members as this is a Council letter?)? Also, as you and others review the proposed comments for inclusion, I would like to encourage you to make sure that these comments focus on feasibility and priority - implementation comments / concerns are for the next phase of the process.

Best regards,

Marika

On 22/04/16 14:22, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Marika and all, > > Gratitude for this. The letter seems pretty good to me. > > For my part, I've done the best I could without delaying this issue > too > much to accumulate the feedback received during the webinar, which > was > held on April 12th. For easy reference, I¹ve added columns to the > spreadsheet containing the GNSO Review Working Party¹s assessment >to > show > these along each of the relevant recommendations. I hope that I >have > not > missed or misinterpreted any of the feedback provided. The feedback > accumulated concerns the independent examiner¹s recommendations 7, > 21, > 23, 32, 35 and 36. > > Also note that the attached assessment/prioritising of > recommendations > does not show the change in color-coding for recommendation 21 from > ³Red² > to ³Yellow², along with the addition of a low priority. This change > was a > result of the feedback provided, as well as the ensuing amendment >to > the > motion by which the Council adopted the Working Party¹s assessment. > > I hope this is somehow helpful. > > Thanks. > > Amr >

<Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - updated 21 April 2016.docx>

Hi Amr, In relation to your question concerning the implementation plan, it is staff¹s understanding that similar to the last GNSO Review the GNSO will be asked to develop an implementation plan for the Board¹s consideration. The assumption is that following the development of this plan it would go through the normal GNSO Council approval process before it is submitted to the ICANN Board. However, I will check with Larisa if our understanding is not inline with the expectation of the OEC/Board. Best regards, Marika On 21/04/16 05:45, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for this. I will provide some additional input as instructed, which I will limit to the feedback received during last week¹s webinar.

I have one suggestion as an addition to this letter ‹ something to indicate that the GNSO Council expects the dialogue between the GNSO and the Board¹s OEC to continue, particularly in the event that the OEC should decide that it disagrees with any of the working party¹s assessments.

This was a topic discussed during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board in Marrakech, and at the time, the indication was that the Board would be agreeable to discussing any areas of concern or disagreement before making any decisions.

Additionally, I have a question. The letter says:

...

Additionally, this forthcoming work will require active participation from the GNSO community and ultimately approval of the implementation plan by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

I didn¹t think that this is the case, but would be glad to learn that I am wrong. My understanding is that the GNSO review was overseen by the Board, not the GNSO Council. Why would the Council¹s approval of the implementation plan be required? I mean it would make sense that the GNSO is on board with the plan, seeing that it would need to participate in the actual implementation. Had the review been initiated by the GNSO, the role of the Council would likely have been very different. Since it wasn¹t, I¹m not sure whether or not the Council approval is required at any point. Am I mistaken?

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 21, 2016, at 4:45 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter to the Board¹s Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party¹s Feasibility and Prioritisation Analysis of the GNSO Review recommendations. As you will note, placeholder language has been included to accommodate any additional comments GNSO Council members may want to include concerning the feasibility and priority of the GNSO Review recommendations, as discussed during the Council meeting.

If you want to add any comments in relation to the feasibility and prioritisation of the recommendations, please provide those at the latest by Friday 22 April. As noted during the Council meeting as well as pointed out in the draft letter, the next phase of work will focus on the development of the implementation plan so any comments related to that aspect of the process should be reserved for the next phase.

Thanks,

Marika <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - 20 April 2016.docx>

Hi Amr, No, I don’t believe that is correct, the last GNSO review as also part of the Bylaw required structural review cycle which is initiated and overseen by the ICANN Board. You can find further information at the bottom of this page on the steps taking as part of that review: https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/org/gnso. Best regards, Marika On 21/04/16 07:49, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks again, Marika. If I’m not mistaken, the last GNSO Review was initiated by the GNSO, not the Board (I wasn’t around back then, but that is what I’ve been told), so I wouldn’t be surprised if the process is a little different this time around.

In any case, it’d be good to know, so thanks for volunteering to check it out. :)

Amr

...

On Apr 21, 2016, at 3:03 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Amr,

In relation to your question concerning the implementation plan, it is staffąs understanding that similar to the last GNSO Review the GNSO will be asked to develop an implementation plan for the Boardąs consideration. The assumption is that following the development of this plan it would go through the normal GNSO Council approval process before it is submitted to the ICANN Board. However, I will check with Larisa if our understanding is not inline with the expectation of the OEC/Board.

Best regards,

Marika

On 21/04/16 05:45, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Thanks for this. I will provide some additional input as instructed, which I will limit to the feedback received during last weekąs webinar.

I have one suggestion as an addition to this letter ‹ something to indicate that the GNSO Council expects the dialogue between the GNSO and the Boardąs OEC to continue, particularly in the event that the OEC should decide that it disagrees with any of the working partyąs assessments.

This was a topic discussed during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board in Marrakech, and at the time, the indication was that the Board would be agreeable to discussing any areas of concern or disagreement before making any decisions.

Additionally, I have a question. The letter says:

...

Additionally, this forthcoming work will require active participation from the GNSO community and ultimately approval of the implementation plan by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

I didnąt think that this is the case, but would be glad to learn that I am wrong. My understanding is that the GNSO review was overseen by the Board, not the GNSO Council. Why would the Counciląs approval of the implementation plan be required? I mean it would make sense that the GNSO is on board with the plan, seeing that it would need to participate in the actual implementation. Had the review been initiated by the GNSO, the role of the Council would likely have been very different. Since it wasnąt, Iąm not sure whether or not the Council approval is required at any point. Am I mistaken?

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 21, 2016, at 4:45 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter to the Boardąs Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Partyąs Feasibility and Prioritisation Analysis of the GNSO Review recommendations. As you will note, placeholder language has been included to accommodate any additional comments GNSO Council members may want to include concerning the feasibility and priority of the GNSO Review recommendations, as discussed during the Council meeting.

If you want to add any comments in relation to the feasibility and prioritisation of the recommendations, please provide those at the latest by Friday 22 April. As noted during the Council meeting as well as pointed out in the draft letter, the next phase of work will focus on the development of the implementation plan so any comments related to that aspect of the process should be reserved for the next phase.

Thanks,

Marika <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - 20 April 2016.docx>

I would advocate in favour of this kind of process. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:03 PM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis Hi Amr, In relation to your question concerning the implementation plan, it is staff¹s understanding that similar to the last GNSO Review the GNSO will be asked to develop an implementation plan for the Board¹s consideration. The assumption is that following the development of this plan it would go through the normal GNSO Council approval process before it is submitted to the ICANN Board. However, I will check with Larisa if our understanding is not inline with the expectation of the OEC/Board. Best regards, Marika On 21/04/16 05:45, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for this. I will provide some additional input as instructed, which I will limit to the feedback received during last week¹s webinar.

I have one suggestion as an addition to this letter ‹ something to indicate that the GNSO Council expects the dialogue between the GNSO and the Board¹s OEC to continue, particularly in the event that the OEC should decide that it disagrees with any of the working party¹s assessments.

This was a topic discussed during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board in Marrakech, and at the time, the indication was that the Board would be agreeable to discussing any areas of concern or disagreement before making any decisions.

Additionally, I have a question. The letter says:

...

Additionally, this forthcoming work will require active participation from the GNSO community and ultimately approval of the implementation plan by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

I didn¹t think that this is the case, but would be glad to learn that I am wrong. My understanding is that the GNSO review was overseen by the Board, not the GNSO Council. Why would the Council¹s approval of the implementation plan be required? I mean it would make sense that the GNSO is on board with the plan, seeing that it would need to participate in the actual implementation. Had the review been initiated by the GNSO, the role of the Council would likely have been very different. Since it wasn¹t, I¹m not sure whether or not the Council approval is required at any point. Am I mistaken?

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 21, 2016, at 4:45 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter to the Board¹s Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party¹s Feasibility and Prioritisation Analysis of the GNSO Review recommendations. As you will note, placeholder language has been included to accommodate any additional comments GNSO Council members may want to include concerning the feasibility and priority of the GNSO Review recommendations, as discussed during the Council meeting.

If you want to add any comments in relation to the feasibility and prioritisation of the recommendations, please provide those at the latest by Friday 22 April. As noted during the Council meeting as well as pointed out in the draft letter, the next phase of work will focus on the development of the implementation plan so any comments related to that aspect of the process should be reserved for the next phase.

Thanks,

Marika <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - 20 April 2016.docx>

Hi, That sounds great. In fact, IMHO, everything we’ve been hearing from the OEC on this so far has demonstrated a desire on their part to make sure that this process continues to move forward in partnership with the GNSO, in a way that I find to be very encouraging. Thanks again, Marika. Amr

On Apr 21, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Amr,

I confirmed with Larisa that my understanding is in line with the expectation of the OEC Board. Furthermore, she noted that 'The main point is that in order for meaningful improvements to take place, the GNSO Council representing the GNSO, staff and Board should all have a shared understanding of what needs to be improved, why, how improvements will take place and how results will be measuredˇŻ.

Best regards,

Marika

On 21/04/16 07:03, "Marika Konings" <owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hi Amr,

In relation to your question concerning the implementation plan, it is staff©ös understanding that similar to the last GNSO Review the GNSO will be asked to develop an implementation plan for the Board©ös consideration. The assumption is that following the development of this plan it would go through the normal GNSO Council approval process before it is submitted to the ICANN Board. However, I will check with Larisa if our understanding is not inline with the expectation of the OEC/Board.

Best regards,

Marika

On 21/04/16 05:45, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:

...

Hi,

Thanks for this. I will provide some additional input as instructed, which I will limit to the feedback received during last week©ös webinar.

I have one suggestion as an addition to this letter ‹ something to indicate that the GNSO Council expects the dialogue between the GNSO and the Board©ös OEC to continue, particularly in the event that the OEC should decide that it disagrees with any of the working party©ös assessments.

This was a topic discussed during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board in Marrakech, and at the time, the indication was that the Board would be agreeable to discussing any areas of concern or disagreement before making any decisions.

Additionally, I have a question. The letter says:

...

Additionally, this forthcoming work will require active participation from the GNSO community and ultimately approval of the implementation plan by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

I didn©öt think that this is the case, but would be glad to learn that I am wrong. My understanding is that the GNSO review was overseen by the Board, not the GNSO Council. Why would the Council©ös approval of the implementation plan be required? I mean it would make sense that the GNSO is on board with the plan, seeing that it would need to participate in the actual implementation. Had the review been initiated by the GNSO, the role of the Council would likely have been very different. Since it wasn©öt, I©öm not sure whether or not the Council approval is required at any point. Am I mistaken?

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Apr 21, 2016, at 4:45 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter to the Board©ös Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party©ös Feasibility and Prioritisation Analysis of the GNSO Review recommendations. As you will note, placeholder language has been included to accommodate any additional comments GNSO Council members may want to include concerning the feasibility and priority of the GNSO Review recommendations, as discussed during the Council meeting.

If you want to add any comments in relation to the feasibility and prioritisation of the recommendations, please provide those at the latest by Friday 22 April. As noted during the Council meeting as well as pointed out in the draft letter, the next phase of work will focus on the development of the implementation plan so any comments related to that aspect of the process should be reserved for the next phase.

Thanks,

Marika <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - 20 April 2016.docx>