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

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would advocate in favour of this kind of process.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Amr Elsadr
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: 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>