Re: [council] For your review - proposed transmittal letter GNSO Review WP Analysis
Hi Amr, I confirmed with Larisa that my understanding is in line with the expectation of the OEC Board. Furthermore, she noted that 'The main point is that in order for meaningful improvements to take place, the GNSO Council representing the GNSO, staff and Board should all have a shared understanding of what needs to be improved, why, how improvements will take place and how results will be measured’. Best regards, Marika On 21/04/16 07:03, "Marika Konings" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >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
|