Hi Manju and everyone, Unfortunately I had to miss the SCCI meeting in Mumbai. A few comments after reviewing the zoom appear below. Re the slide on Principle 1 re the GNSO: A. In the first column, I would make the reference to "mechansim" plural, i.e. the GNSO has more than one "mechanism" to help accomplish its purpose as set out in the Bylaws. I would also refer specifically to Article 11 of the Bylaws. B. regarding the GNSO accomplishing its purpose, I think it would help to have more specificity in the indicators to be measured. For example, (i) one element of the Bylaws speaks about the need for diversity as follows: " Stakeholder Groups should, in their charters, ensure their representation on the GNSO Council is as diverse as possible and practicable, including considerations of geography, GNSO Constituency, sector, ability and gender" So it seems we would need an indicator that measures that diversity. (ii) Another indicator might be a measure regarding the number and type of liaisons to Council since liaisons from outside the GNSO are specifically mentioned in Article 11 of the Bylaws. (iii) Something else we could look at as an indicator would be the timeliness of completion of PDPs as we are contemplating continuous improvements. Measuring the timeliness might be a function of comparing the completion to the original projected timeline. For example, Latin Diacritics appeared to complete earlier. (Christian pointed out it may not be productive to measure absolute numbers of PDPs but looking as progress against scheduled timelines could make more sense and certainly the community is interested in this indicator.) C. In the second column on that same slide, I would also make the reference to "body" plural - i.e. "The GNSO has existing bodies that allow..." etc since we know that we have various Cs and SGs as well as the Council itself as a body. We might also consider in this analysis indicators in relation to (i)how work gets done in the small team configuration as well as the (ii) drafting team configuration since these are both "bodies" that do important work in Council. (iii) Also, how do we incorporate the important role of policy staff in these indicators? Can we talk about the mechanisms that facilitate the working relationship between Council Leadership and staff? Between PDPs and staff? (iv) Do we consider the mandated public comment process a "mechanism"? How do we measure the effectiveness of public comment on PDP Initial Reports in relation to the outcome of the Final Report? D. For the third column on the same slide, I think that it would be wise to develop a standard that goes beyond whether the GNSO is "fulfilling its purpose" and would go to the manner in which the purposes under the Bylaws Article 11 are being fulfilled, e.g. "in a thorough, efficient, and timely manner?" (Don't take these as complete or final - just hoping for some more measurable standards for this indicator in Column 3.) Here I would also encourage some attention to how we define the "constituents" to be surveyed. Are there constituents outside the GNSO as well as inside it. e,g, other SOs and ACs? the Board? (For example, Steve used the word "respondents". This goes to who is being surveyed.) I understand that staff will be developing first draft indicators for the March 25 meeting and wanted to provide the above input in case it is helpful to that process, especially as to quantifiable measures as mentioned by Peter toward the end of the zoom. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com