ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

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

Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis

  • To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
  • From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:02:49 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: t-online.de; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;t-online.de; dmarc=none action=none header.from=godaddy.com;
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=secureservernet.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-godaddy-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=1ViwGzbYCBTM8If2QOU8g2Nqt/Bo4pL5Hx9nCssoqzo=; b=zX5ZmKwJtMiuqeSKyfzytCf/eu70571RBR3bT70X91bEF6tyXQoQyTRYAuOvt1YFpLSUe1zpsN2hah7oSARVekj7EPGO//9dZ0r2CKYJuUlm0Pex5Upp5uFhORuoah0/QCDSITFZeKr9eM0Tz927SHCzuC2h81nI+t7ZeNZn6hg=
  • In-reply-to: <DD216429AE184C48A41EEB5E8970FAAF@WUKPC>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <D33D9ABE.677F9%marika.konings@icann.org> <DD216429AE184C48A41EEB5E8970FAAF@WUKPC>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
  • Thread-index: AQHRm3fa11hR7X5W9k2YnMEIMrvzhZ+UQVsA///QBwA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.6.150930
Hi Wolf-Ulrich.


1. Shouldn't the letter be addressed to the OEC chair?
- Good catch, I agree.

2. Do we expect action/approval from the OEC or board re starting the 
implementation planning? Then we should express it.
- Yes, we should establish this expectation

Thanks-

J.




From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 5:54
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO 
Review WP Analysis

Thanks Marika,

1. Shouldn't the letter be addressed to the OEC chair?

2. Do we expect action/approval from the OEC or board re starting the 
implementation planning? Then we should express it.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


From: Marika Konings<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:45 AM
To: GNSO Council List<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP 
Analysis

Dear All,

Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter to the 
Board's Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning the adoption by 
the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party's Feasibility and 
Prioritisation Analysis of the GNSO Review recommendations. As you will note, 
placeholder language has been included to accommodate any additional comments 
GNSO Council members may want to include concerning the feasibility and 
priority of the GNSO Review recommendations, as discussed during the Council 
meeting.

If you want to add any comments in relation to the feasibility and 
prioritisation of the recommendations, please provide those at the latest by 
Friday 22 April. As noted during the Council meeting as well as pointed out in 
the draft letter, the next phase of work will focus on the development of the 
implementation plan so any comments related to that aspect of the process 
should be reserved for the next phase.

Thanks,

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