<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Board SIC / GNSO Review
- To: "Mason Cole" <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>, <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Board SIC / GNSO Review
- From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 21:30:25 +0100
- Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <5B6518F4-AF87-47C3-9A01-3DD5A499D753@5x5com.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <019c01cedcad$6851d750$38f585f0$@afilias.info> <5B6518F4-AF87-47C3-9A01-3DD5A499D753@5x5com.com>
- Reply-to: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree, too.
Since we’ve planned so far a separate session with Ray o the weekend, we could
use this slot for an internal reflection of the preceding discussion with the
board on the matter.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
From: Mason Cole
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:51 PM
To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Board SIC / GNSO Review
I support this. Though I'm not sure now is the time for GNSO review, I would
be interested in hearing Ray's views. Thanks for arranging, Jonathan.
On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
I have spoken with Ray Plzak on the GNSO Review. Ray chairs the ICANN Board
Structural Improvements Committee i.e. the committee responsible for working on
ICANN Board commissioned organisational reviews.
The detail of the GNSO Review is still work in progress as far as the SIC is
concerned and it fits into a broader perspective on the shape and structure of
related review work in future.
In this context, Ray shared a concept paper with the ATRT2 and that is
publicly available here:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atrt2/2013/001111.html
As part of our interaction with the ICANN board on Sunday November 17th, Ray
has offered to update the Council on latest thinking and development so that is
something I suggest we take advantage of.
He is also potentially available to meet with a smaller (Review focussed)
group in Buenos Aires.
In any event, there is nothing to stop us getting on with reviewing our own
work on policy development since the last GNSO review. We could look into
various factors such as time taken, whether or not the policy achieved what was
intended and whether or not there were any unintended consequences. From what
I can see, this could be useful as part of our own work to improve and feed
into the Board commissioned organisational review of the GNSO.
We can discuss this further during the appropriate weekend session in Buenos
Aires.
Thanks.
Jonathan
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|