Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
Hi Amr, In relation to your question concerning the implementation plan, it is staff¹s understanding that similar to the last GNSO Review the GNSO will be asked to develop an implementation plan for the Board¹s consideration. The assumption is that following the development of this plan it would go through the normal GNSO Council approval process before it is submitted to the ICANN Board. However, I will check with Larisa if our understanding is not inline with the expectation of the OEC/Board. Best regards, Marika On 21/04/16 05:45, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi, > >Thanks for this. I will provide some additional input as instructed, >which I will limit to the feedback received during last week¹s webinar. > >I have one suggestion as an addition to this letter ? something to >indicate that the GNSO Council expects the dialogue between the GNSO and >the Board¹s OEC to continue, particularly in the event that the OEC >should decide that it disagrees with any of the working party¹s >assessments. > >This was a topic discussed during the NCSG meeting with the ICANN Board >in Marrakech, and at the time, the indication was that the Board would be >agreeable to discussing any areas of concern or disagreement before >making any decisions. > >Additionally, I have a question. The letter says: > >> Additionally, this forthcoming work will require active participation >>from the GNSO community and ultimately approval of the implementation >>plan by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board. > > >I didn¹t think that this is the case, but would be glad to learn that I >am wrong. My understanding is that the GNSO review was overseen by the >Board, not the GNSO Council. Why would the Council¹s approval of the >implementation plan be required? I mean it would make sense that the GNSO >is on board with the plan, seeing that it would need to participate in >the actual implementation. Had the review been initiated by the GNSO, the >role of the Council would likely have been very different. Since it >wasn¹t, I¹m not sure whether or not the Council approval is required at >any point. Am I mistaken? > >Thanks. > >Amr > >> On Apr 21, 2016, at 4:45 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> >>wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find attached for your review, the proposed transmittal letter >>to the Board¹s Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) concerning >>the adoption by the GNSO Council of the GNSO Review Working Party¹s >>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 >> <Transmittal letter - GNSO Review WP analysis - 20 April 2016.docx> > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|