RE: [council] Prioritization Process - Motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My thinking is that it might be useful to have public comments to use
when we evaluate the process.

 

Chuck

 

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Olga Cavalli; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] Prioritization Process - Motion

 

Maybe we should wait until we see outcomes.  I have some process
comments, but they may be moot depending on outcome. 

         

________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:15 PM
        To: Olga Cavalli; GNSO Council
        Subject: RE: [council] Prioritization Process - Motion

        Thank you very much Olga.  I wonder whether we should also
request comments on the process used at the same time.  What do others
think?

         

        In case there is support for an amendment like this, Ken would
you please draft an amendment and I will make it if appropriate.

         

        Chuck

         

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
        Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 3:40 PM
        To: GNSO Council
        Subject: [council] Prioritization Process - Motion

         

        Hi,

        I am sending the folowing motion for your consideration.

        Best regards

        Olga

         

        GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Re: Work Prioritization)

        WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, at its 21 April 2010 meeting, adopted
a resolution and timeline
<https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions>  to
conduct its first Work Prioritization effort according to a set of
procedures (proposed Chapter 6 and ANNEX
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/wpmg-section-6-and-annex-09apr10-en.pdf> )
recommended by the Work Prioritization Model Drafting Team (WPM-DT); 

        WHEREAS, the adopted timeline outlined four major process steps
the first three of which have been completed as follows: 

        1)      Step 1:  ICANN Policy Staff prepared and delivered to
the GNSO Council a recommended Work Prioritization Project List
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/work-prioritization-project-list-30apr10-e
n.pdf>  (v1.0), including a Cover Letter
<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/cover-letter-work-prioritization-p
roject-list-30apr10-en.pdf> , on 30 April 2010 [Council approved on 20
May 2010 <http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> ]

        2)      Step 2:  Eighteen Councilors and one Liaison (19 total)
submitted individual Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects
(approved in Step 1) on or before 9 June (deadline extended from 7
June), which were then successfully processed and aggregated by Staff
for input to Step 3; 

        3)      Step 3:  The GNSO Council held a Work Prioritization
group discussion session on 19 June 2010 in Brussels and successfully
finalized a set of Value Ratings for all 15 Eligible Projects; 

        NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
        
        RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council approves the GNSO Work
Prioritization Value Ratings finalized in its group discussion session
held on 19 June 2010 and directs Staff to publish those Value Ratings on
the GNSO website according to Step 4 of the adopted timeline.