RE: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all, as I promised, I used Grant's version so that we can begin to get
the comments into one single document for consideration. I couldn't make a
COB Europe deadline, but did slightly beat the CoB US deadline!

 

I do have lots of question and a few concerns. I don't support incorporating
the work of the PDP revision into this review of the GNSO. My comments are
apparent in the body of the document. I also note that the consultant should
not be allowed to expand the work as he/she sees fit and provided a
suggestion on how any "suggested changes" in the work could be considered.
There are several areas which need to be tightened up considerably so that
the consultant knows where to look, for instance, merely reviewing "other
organizations" is too broad an assignment. One could spend a lot of time
interviewing "other organizations" and while interesting, quite expensive to
do. budget is everything as they say. 

 

That reminds me that we are still waiting for the information about the
budget. Perhaps we can see that early next week. 

 

Have a good week end, all.

Regards, Marilyn 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Grant FORSYTH
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:34 AM
To: 'Liz Williams'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information

 

Liz et al

Attached is a marked up version of your TOR

Besides the specific comments marked up I provide the following additional
comments:

Formatting

1 It would be desirable if all GNSO staff reports/papers etc conformed to an
agreed standard layout with a minimum set of information (which I have
provided here as mark ups)

2 please ensure all paragraphs and bullets are numbered

3. Given that ICANN is an international body, I recommend that dates be
provided in full to avoid confusion. IE 1 September 2005, not 1/9/05 or
9/1/05. Dates of documents (unless it is explicitly noted as the "print"
date) should not use the MS Word "insert date option", but rather be typed
in. This avoids the original date of the document changing.

4 I personally don't think the moving of the questions/analysis to footers
works. My preference is that they be moved to an annex

 

I look forward advancing the development of the TOR on the call.

 

Regards

 

 

Grant Forsyth 
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs 
TelstraClear 
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads 
Private Bag 92143 
AUCKLAND 
ph +64 9 912 5759 
fx + 64 9 912 4077 
Mb 029 912 5759 

-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 01 September, 2005 00:56
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] GNSO Review TOR + Background Information

Colleagues

 

Thank you to everyone who has provided comments so far.  Please find
attached two documents.  As per input from the conference call last week, I
have separated out the background information and devised another document
which looks more like a more formal TOR.

 

Could I ask you to review it - the Chair has asked for comments to be in by
Friday 2 Sept Brussels COB.   He will then forward an updated document to
the Board for 8 Sept once any additional comments are taken into account. 

 

On the current timeframe, this means that the Board will not receive the
document seven days prior to any meeting.

 

Any questions, come back to me.

 

Kind regards.

 

Liz

 

 

 

Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

Tel:  +32 2 234 7874

Fax:  +32 2 234 7848

Mob:  +61 414 26 9000