A further paper for discussion tomorrow: please note the proposes a
"non-traditional WG approach" to support staff work. Personally I do not
favour this, but please provide your thoughts so that Councillors can
discuss at the GNSO meeting
Kind regards
Joy


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[council] GNSO Metrics & Reporting (MetRep) for 5 Sept GNSO
Council Meeting
Date: 	Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:50:14 -0700
From: 	Berry Cobb <[log in to unmask]>
To: 	<[log in to unmask]>
CC: 	<[log in to unmask]>



Jonathan and All,

 

Please find attached a document regarding the GNSO Metrics & Reporting
WG.  As you may recall, we have an issue with limited volunteers within
the GNSO for this effort, which is not considered sufficiently
representative.  At the GNSO Council meeting in Durban, the staff was
tasked (Action Item #7
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items>)
with developing a possible alternative approach to the Uniformity of
Reporting Final Issue Report recommendations approved in Beijing.  This
MetRep document is intended to provide a possible way forward for the
GNSO Council to consider.

 

*_Item 6: DISCUSSION -- Metrics and Reporting WG (10 mins)_*

Despite the unanimous support for this resolution, only six volunteers
(3 GNSO, 3 ALAC) have signed up for this effort to date, which is not
considered sufficiently representative to kick off the DT. Apart from
renewing the call for volunteers or delaying this effort, the GNSO
Council could consider, as this is a non-PDP WG, to explore an
alternative approach to addressing this issue while still respecting the
multi-stakeholder approach, but not necessarily requiring the formation
of a DT or WG. 

Please let me know if you require additional information or if you have
any questions.

 

Thank you.  B

 

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

720.839.5735

[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>

@berrycobb