RE: [council] Board review of Papers
- To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Board review of Papers
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:49:43 +1000
- In-reply-to: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3F5A146305@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3F5A146305@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: ActmNQuYQnTYVQEARWmT8itTc0MQegAa4K4A
- Thread-topic: [council] Board review of Papers
>> How much time would the Board like to have papers prior to meetings/
retreats etc in order to ensure they are appropriately considered?
7 days if you want the Board to read the document from the GNSO.
14 days if you want the staff to have an opportunity to summarise a long
document into a more readable summary.
Bear in mind that there is an enormous amount of reading material that
hits the Board from the staff and the various advisory committees within
14 days of a Board meeting.
I found some of the recent reports from working groups a bit hard to
wade through - the first half was preamble etc.
Recommend some crisp executive summaries (ie no more than 1 page) that
clearly identify the issue, the proposed solution, and the degree of
support for that solution. This is the style we have requested from
staff - we separate papers into a short summary, and more detailed
material contained in an ANNEX.