ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform

  • To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform
  • From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:24:26 -0800 (PST)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=pqaIi6NIlcLpLwrzYZd0ANmWNm49v9ckxEXuwHIfsEgTyaA9Gkrl5MK7aQ8byUsWE78Yyst1tsscLdE50WSZJqbjTdZmXpv9XtRwPsr7TwuPQKinq4VgkuExfbje0CuS3FidfFlBjjVTVj7cQsgfFfdjh8Ma3O8a94Zk9rItvPA=;
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Philip et al,
      Thanks for your quick action.  The BGC report structured its 
recommendations under 5 main categories:



1. Adopting a WG model


2. Revising the PDP (Policy Development Process)


3. Restructuring the GNSO Council


4. Enhancing constituencies


5. Improving Coordination with ICANN structures



It might be useful in supplying feedback to the BGC  to follow this same 
structure.
Thus, we might say that the GNSO generally supports reforms described in 
categories 2, 4 and 5?  Is this a correct reading of your suggested starting 
point?  Or do we agree only on parts of 2, 4 and 5?

Greg

----- Original Message ----
From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:03:49 AM
Subject: [council] Draft reply Council on GNSO reform




 

As agreed on 
yesterday's Council call, I promised to draft a short paper as a "straw man" 
listing those recommendations on GNSO reform that may be supportable by Council 
as a whole.

Given the deadline 
is submission by 30 November I thought I'd better get a move 
on.

 

Not surprisingly 
those listed are ones seeking:

- improvements in 
policy development and timeline flexibility,

- improvements in 
communications,

- improvements in 
outreach

- greater support 
for constituencies.

 

I have left out 
proposals on structural change suspecting we will have differing 
views.

 

On working groups, I 
am proposing a partial support, suspecting we mostly feel they will work for 
much policy work, but that tying our hands to have ONLY working groups for 
EVERY 
issue before us would be too inflexible.  

 

I hope I have 
captured areas of potential agreement. Your first comments please by 
November 25 after which time I'll edit a proposed final 
version.

Comments can be as 
simple as  - "yes I/we support" or can be proposals to strike one of the 
proposed areas of agreement. In that case, a word of explanation would be good 
to share.

 

 

 

Philip 






      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut!  Let your teams follow you 
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>