Thanks Chris,
A few comments prior to the April 2 meeting:
1. I would add to the Screening Process (in second place after the reference to the Mission) a requirement to state that the topic must recommend
a procedure or process closely related to the Accountability and Transparency requirements of the ICANN Bylaws (After all, we are calling this the ATR bucket.)
2. I would limit the SOs and AC leadership to recommending review of no more than three (3) topics. If the list is unlimited, everyone will add a "pet peeve" and you will not get through the screening process in a reasonable time frame.
I agree with David that development of a template makes sense.
Separately, Could you please confirm that the call for topics at the GNSO will be made to GNSO Council Leadership? (I understand that each SO/AC Leadership team would be able to develop approaches to developing the slate within its own body. Trying to figure out how many individuals are involved in analyzing once the topics are submitted?) Is it 3 for GNSO, 5 for the GAC, one for every region of ALAC etc etc - same issue we often have in a CCWG. And does this team operate under the CCWG Working Group Guidelines to make Recommendations for reviews to the Board which must then approve or not?
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
Reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review mailing list -- reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to reviewsccg-subgroup-bucket-a-review-leave@icann.org