[registrars] Regarding constituency input to the LSE recommendations for GNSO review

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Tim,

> 
> No comments on the support/priority ranking. But I do have 
> concerns with
> the intent of a matrix approach like this. Some of the recommendations
> are interdependent in my view. For example, 19, 20 and 21. And some of
> the recommendations under Working procedures seem dependent 
> on 6 and 18
> under Structure. 

Yes - that is understood.   The more detailed submissions from the
individual constituencies make that clear.  I also submitted a version
of this document to the registrars list on 12 Jan 2007 that included
comments against each recommendation that made that clear.   See:

http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg04454.htm
l  

I did submit this document to the Board's Governance committee for
consideration.


The purpose of the table is to help identify which recommendations have
widespread support across the constituencies, and which require further
consideration.  Generally those with "medium" support need further
discussion.

With respect to the larger structural changes - most constituencies are
saying that they need further discussion.

In Lisbon the intent is to have a workshop that focuses on the major
structural (and interdependent) recommendations.  The aim is to have a
call for papers for those that have specific ideas for a new structure,
and allow those that have submitted a paper to make a short
presentation.  Other than that there will be an open mike session.
This workshop will be run by the Board's Governance Committee, and will
be held on Monday afternoon 26 March in Lisbon (see
http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/ ).

See: http://www.icann.org/committees/board-governance/ 

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin