[council] RE: GNSO Review: Updated information (was ICANN Board call)

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Liz. Very helpful to have the list of all the links in one place. 

 

However, I still have some questions. Since you are traveling over for the
Council Working group meeting in D.C., we can discuss this topic under AOB
on the agenda. 

 

  _____  

From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:41 AM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pritz@xxxxxxxxx; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx;
twomey@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: GNSO Review: Updated information (was ICANN Board call)

 

Marilyn and Council Colleagues

 

As the senior staff member responsible for the GNSO Review, I will soon be
able to provide much more detailed information on the way in which the
Review will be proceeding now that the appropriate formalities from last
night's Board meeting are completed.

 

For the benefit of Council members who have not been involved in the
establishment of the Review, I've provided some easy to navigate background.
I hope this also helps other Council members with their preparation for the
Review.

 

1.  The July 2005 Luxembourg Resolution initiated the Review and started a
process of discussion between the Board, Council, and Staff on the
establishment of the Terms of Reference.
(http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15jul05.htm#p4)

 

2.  The December 2005 Vancouver Resolution approved the Terms of Reference
which had been developed in consultation with individual members of the
Board, Council and Staff
(http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-04dec05.htm.)   A 21 day public
comment period about the draft Terms of Reference was conducted between 27
October 2005 and 17 November 2005.   The archive of comments is at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-review-tor/

 

3.  The 14 December 2005 ICANN website posting sought requests for proposals
from independent evaluators
(http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm).

 

4.  The 21 Feb 2006 Board Resolution approved the appointment of an
independent team of evaluators but is not available online as yet.  

 

5.  Background documents on the GNSO Review can be found at
http://www.icann.org/gnso/review-tor-background-04nov05.htm.  These include
the recommendations from the GNSO Council Review, the relevant ICANN By laws
and other helpful information.

 

6.  The Terms of Reference can be found at
http://www.icann.org/gnso/review-reference-terms-27oct05.htm.  

 

7.  Article IV Section 4 of ICANN's Bylaws
(http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#IV) gives
guidance about the conduct of the review and I've copied it here for easy
reference.  I have added some emphasis which may provide clarification about
the process.  

 

1. The Board shall cause a periodic review, if feasible no less frequently
than every three years, of the performance and operation of each Supporting
Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee
(other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating
Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under
review. The goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria
and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether
that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii)
if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve
its effectiveness. The results of such reviews shall be posted on the
Website for public review and comment, and shall be considered by the Board
no later than the second scheduled meeting of the Board after such results
have been posted for 30 days. The consideration by the Board includes the
ability to revise the structure or operation of the parts of ICANN being
reviewed by a two-thirds vote of all members of the Board.

 

Finally, ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5 which deals with the GNSO's
operating procedures.

 

Of course, any further questions are more than welcome.

 

Liz

....................................................

 

Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

+32 2 234 7874 tel

+32 2 234 7848 fax

+32 497 07 4243 mob

 

 





 

On 22 Feb 2006, at 01:43, Marilyn Cade wrote:





The fact that the gNSO review has been finalized, a briefing of the Council
on the ?proposed approach? is of concern. This was supposed to be a joint
effort by the Board and the Council and we are sadly without "visibility"
into the process, or the outline, or the proposal. Or the funding amount,
which I have asked for twice, on Council calls.

 

This is something that I propose that Council bring up with the
President/CEO and Senior staff. I had noted it on the Board agenda, but
never envisioned that there would be an approval, without discussion with
the Council.

No doubt that is planned, but Senior Staff are seeking still to schedule a
discussion with Council.

 

We can help them by initiating this discussion. Let?s spend five minutes on
agenda bashing on our upcoming Council meeting on Friday.

 

Marilyn Cade

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 6:57 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] ICANN Board Call

 

Dear Council Members:

 

The ICANN Board just concluded its teleconference today and took the

following actions.

 

(1) Approval of São Paulo, Brazil as the venue for the 2006 ICANN annual

meeting the first week in December; and

 

(2) Approved funds to pay the evaluators for their work in connection

with the review of the GNSO;

 

Although there was a discussion regarding the VeriSign settlement

negotiation, there was no action taking. There is a scheduled call for

next week 28-Feb-2006. Although the Chair and secretariat have not yet

finalized the agenda for that call it is most likely to involve further

VeriSign discussions as well as those items which have not yet been

completed from today's call. As always, I will try to keep the council

informed of any developments.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael D. Palage