RE: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes

["Ron Andruff" <ra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

 

Having read through the transcript of the London face-to-face meeting, as
well as the email thread on the list, I would like to commend Philip and
Chuck on the most recent draft of survey questions.  I support them fully.

 

With regard to the proposed meeting schedule, twice weekly works for me as
well. Having said that, apologies for missing the July 10th meeting due to
family vacation.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

dotSport LLC

 <http://www.lifedotsport.com> www.lifedotsport.com 

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 09:46
To: BRG; gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes

 

Thanks Philip.  Your input is outstanding.  I added some comments and
suggestion using the Word redline function.

 

The more I think about this, the more I think it would be much better if we
provided a separate survey for those who want to respond to questions about
a specific Group.  If they want to do so for more than one group, they could
fill out separate surveys for each one.  I think this would also make the
overall format of the survey much simpler.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of BRG
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 6:15 AM
To: gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-review-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: [gnso-review-dt] Survey questions: rproposed changes

 

Hi everyone,

Let me say I think the starting point and breadth of the survey is
excellent. This is no easy task.

 

Please find attached a number of proposed changes to the survey.

The changes in part reflect my role as a previous Names Council chair, GNSO
council member, Constituency member, and working party member of the 2008
GNSO council reform. I tried to think through how I would manage in
answering the questions, and where I failed, have proposed changes.

 

I have proposed a new section for NomCom as this may help with responses
putting all the relevant questions in one place. NomCom appointees are a
different flavour to other groups, and the questions need to reflect this.

 

I have also expanded a bit the final section - where I have added Chuck's
substantive proposals - and indicated support to his other comments.

 

In doing our work, I have reviewed the answers this group got from the SIC
about structure. It is relevant also for us to remember the Board's original
September resolution (below) on the review. The Board expected the review to
be forward looking and we should fulfil that. 

 

Philip

https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2013-09-28-en

 

In its  <https://www.myicann.org/gnso-review?language=es> resolution of 28
September 2013 the ICANN Board stated:

"The expansion of the TLD space has increased the number and variety of
stakeholders participating in GNSO policy making and a review needs to take
place on schedule to examine whether the current model meets the needs of a
new generation of stakeholders. 

 

GNSO Structure is unlikely to accommodate the anticipated new stream of
stakeholders resulting from the expansion of the TLD space. The GNSO Review
will be an important vehicle for considering and addressing this issue. The
unbalance that is already occurring needs to be addressed by the GNSO
Review. "