Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
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, I’ve added columns to the spreadsheet containing the GNSO Review Working Party’s 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 examiner’s 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 “Red” to “Yellow”, 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 Party’s assessment. I hope this is somehow helpful. Thanks. Amr Attachment:
GNSO Review Rec Feasibility Prioritization (FINAL) + Feedback from Webinar on April 12 2016.xlsx > On Apr 21, 2016, at 8:43 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Wolf-Ulrich, Amr, all, > > I’ve 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thursday 21 April 2016 at 07:02 > To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings > <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO > Review WP Analysis > > Hi Wolf-Ulrich. > > > 1. Shouldn’t 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of WUKnoben > <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:54 > To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List > <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO > Review WP Analysis > > Thanks Marika, > > 1. Shouldn’t 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 > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:45 AM > To: GNSO Council List > 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 > Board’s Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning the adoption > by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party’s 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 - updated 21 April 2016.docx>
|