RE: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board regarding Public Participation

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

That seems a fine edit to me.

It certainly was the intention.

Adrian Kinderis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:58 PM
To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board regarding Public 
Participation


Thanks to Adrian and all involved in the drafting of this letter.

I have just one comment re the paragraph requesting that staff and Board
members answer the questions raised during public sessions directly (I have
copied the paragraph below for clarity). Is the intent here that staff
and/or Board should answer all questions directly during the session? Or is
the request that answers be provided at some point after the session as was
the case with the document published by staff after Cairo? I think this just
needs a little clarification in the text. Assuming it is the latter, I
propose the following edit below (marked by start and end points in caps and
brackets):

The quality of these sessions and the satisfaction of participants can often
be gauged on the level of ICANN Board interaction. The GNSO Council would
like the ICANN Board and staff to continue with the practice started in
Cairo of responding directly to questions where appropriate, (SVG EDIT
BEGINS) either at the time or in a subsequent document to be published not
long after the meeting, as was the case in Cairo.(SVG EDIT ENDS) These
sessions should not simply be Œone way traffic¹.  The audience benefits from
hearing direct responses from the ICANN Board and staff on relevant issues.
Many believe that it is the duty of a Board Member, in taking on the role,
that they actively engage their constituents.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder


Le 03/02/09 00:12, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> In order to get this sent as soon as possible, I would like to avoid
> waiting until we have a meeting for the approval.
>
> So,  I ask for a 24 hour call on this document.   If there are no
> comments I will send it to the Board with a copy to the appropriate
> Staff leadership on Wednesday 4 Feb at 0000 UTC.
>
> If there are any comments or corrections, the call will continue for
> another 24 hours from when the revised version is sent to the list.
>
> Thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 2 Feb 2009, at 17:13, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> In Cairo I was asked to head a drafting team to author a letter to
>> the ICANN Board conveying our disappointment in the Public
>> Participation sessions at the Cairo Meeting and to address the
>> concern that ICANN was trending to reduce the amount of ³contact
>> sessions² between the Public and the Board ­ a vital part of the
>> ICANN Meetings.
>>
>> Please find attached the letter that we submit to the Council for
>> approval to go to the Board.
>>
>> Avri, can you please provide the appropriate comment period and
>> detail the process for this to happen.
>>
>> Thanks to Chuck, Avri and Kristina for their assistance.
>>
>> Adrian Kinderis
>>
>>
>> <GNSO letter to the Board RE Public Participation.doc>
>
>
>