RE: [ispcp] COMMENT REQUIRED by end of Tuesday 25 August.

["Jaime Wagner" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with the terms.

 

(I made some minor language corrections and suggestions in the text below.)

 

 

Jaime Wagner

ISPs Representative

CGI (Brazilian Internet Steering Commitee)
 <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime <mailto:jaime@xxxxxx> @cgi.br
+55(51)8126-0916
 <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +55(51)3123-1701

 

From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tony Holmes
Sent: segunda-feira, 24 de agosto de 2009 10:13
To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ispcp] COMMENT REQUIRED by end of Tuesday 25 August.

 

Dear ISPCP members

Following the support expressed to respond to the GNSO Operations Team's
request for comments on a proposed revised structure for the GNSO, the
following response has been produced based on comments received.

The aim is to forward this to the GNSO Operations team before their
conference call on Wednesday 26th August ,. If you require amendment, please
respond by the end of Tuesday 25th.

Thanks

Tony

__________________

 

ISP& Connectivity Providers Constituency 

Response to GNSO Council Operations Work Team on Proposed GNSO Structure

In response to the recent request for comments on the proposal  to create a
new GNSO Administrative body to deal with administrative issues the ISPCP
offers the following comments. 

The consensus view of the ISPCP Constituency is that the creation of a new
Administrative body would not be in the best interest of the GNSO. At a time
when the GNSO is fundamentally changing its structure and working methods
with the move towards a more progressive role for working groups, its
essential for GNSO to use the available resources wisely.   Under these
circumstances  GNSO already has too much work and too few volunteers.

Creating an additional stream of work would have the effect of diluting the
work of volunteers even more and bring into question the whole nature of
ICANN as a bottom up organization.  As the number of volunteers dwindles,
more and more of the work has to be undertaken by staff if the required
progress is to be made. That situation would inevitably evolve from
coordination and facilitation by staff to actual policy making. 

In addition such a move adds an additional layer of complexity, with limited
reward, since the administrative work has been carried out quite adequately
by staff.

The ISPCP does not support the division of the GNSO in this manner.