RE: [council] Administrative matters

[Alick Wilson <alick.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have just been reviewing Liz Williams' GNSO Phase One paper again and I
note that the following Recommendations from Patrick Sharry's review:
 

Recommendation 10: The Chair of the GNSO Council and the VP Supporting
Organizations should establish a service level 

agreement between the GNSO Council and ICANN management that specifies the
amount and type of support that is to be 

provided. Where possible, this should include measures (eg turnaround times
for legal opinion, delivery of reports by agreed dates, minutes posted
within a certain number of days). The Chair should consult the Council to
ensure the targets meet the needs of the Council and its taskforces. The VP
Supporting Organizations and Chair of GNSO Council should meet quarterly to
review 

performance measures and report these to the President. 

 

I suggest that this service level agreement be a high priority item for the
first administrative call.

 

Bruce, would you please ask staff to prepare a draft SLA for consideration
and discussion on the first administrative call.

 

I note the recommendation says that 'The Chair should consult the Council to
ensure the targets meet the needs of the Council and its taskforces'. As a
precursor to this consultation, I request that the staff review the
timelines imposed by the PDP process and incorporate draft targets in the
draft SLA which are consistent.

 

Bruce, please confirm that you are OK with this and that you have actioned
it as requested.

 

Thanks,

Alick

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alick Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2005 2:23 p.m.
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Administrative matters


Colleagues
 
I concur with Philip's concern that '... 17 out of 20 recommendations dating
from last year for improving effectiveness of the GNSO Council (and thus the
GNSO) are NOT yet implemented ...'.
 
However, I question whether we are now constrained by '... lack of
resource.'
 
We now have three staff providing support. We have requested information
about staff roles and responsibilities and time commitment to GNSO matters.
In the absence of same, and until we have that information, I think it is
reasonable to assume that we have three full time staff. This seems more
than sufficient to make progress on those outstanding items.
 
We need staff to prepare a list of all Council activities, with priorities,
resource requirements, resource allocated, timeline and project plan. This
list should include all substantive policy projects, contemplated or under
action, and the 17 recommendations referred to above.
 
Bruce, perhaps you could request that staff action this as above and add
this to the list of agenda items for the forthcoming first administrative
call.
 
Thanks,
Alick
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, 26 August 2005 10:32 p.m.
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] On the use of 'fairness' et al


Avri,
everything you say is correct but we need to consider practicality.
 
The concern of myself and other Council members is to ensure the GNSO review
is done well but does not grow out of proportion to our prime objective of
policy development. The more comprehensive the review and the more
ill-defined its scope, the less resource (time and money) we have for this
objective.
 
I am concerned that we are today launching a GNSO review at a time when 17
out of 20 recommendations dating from last year for improving effectiveness
of the GNSO Council (and thus the GNSO) are NOT yet implemented due to lack
of resource.
 
If we end up in 2006 with a list of 20 new recommendations that are also not
implemented, the effectiveness of the GNSO will be unchanged.
 
 
Philip