Re: [council] Clarification of Comments

[ICANNSoph <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings:

I agree with all that is said above.  Maybe the Council was a bit premature
in its motion or a modification is further due if we cannot resolve it.

>From what I heard in the meeting, the time frame vs. substantive issue were
the bearer of this motion to initiate a separate process.  If there is
a conflict of interest we should be aware of, I would suggest the Staff
should be in a position to inform us.

Thank you.
Sophia


On 17/01/06, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> I agree with this completely.  we should not presume that the staff
> manager ecannot do the report.  If they can't or if the report is
> deficient in some way, which is _not_ my expectation, then we would
> need to figure out what to do next, but I see no reason not to follow
> the normal process at this point.
>
> a.
>
> On 17 jan 2006, at 19.01, Ross Rader wrote:
>
> > That said, the work undertaken as a result of this resolution
> > should be carried out according to the processes we've agreed to.
> > In our policy development process, the next step is to request the
> > creation of an issues report from the Staff Manager. The Staff
> > Manager must create an issues report for us within 15 days. I don't
> > believe it is appropriate for us to presume that this obligation
> > will not be met.  In the event that we are unable to execute the
> > process per the requirements of the bylaws, we should consider what
> > our alternatives are, and proceed in a way that least offends those
> > bylaws. In other words, if the Staff Manager informs Council that
> > we can't get what we need to do our when in a time frame thats
> > meaningful, then we should look at other options - retaining
> > outside help, etc.
>
>


--
Sophia Bekele
Voice/Fax: 925-935-1598
Mob:925-818-0948
sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx
SKYPE: skypesoph
www.cbsintl.com