Response to “Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) Final Consolidated Recommendations”

[Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>]

     I should note straight off that I was heavily involved in the main
ICANN effort to move all ICANN websites (there are more than 10) to a single
database to make sharing of information much easier and faster across the
organization.



I also participated in number of CCT meetings and liaised with ICANN staff
helping the CCT, provided advice and also sent through results of an ICANN
staff website evaluation I headed.



My comments as bullet points below. Again, because of the comment period
approach – publish a document and ask for feedback - this note is largely
critical. I would much rather see a system where could grade overall quality
of report and/or point out good aspects of report and/or vote in favour of
recommendations – that would be a much more effective and positive way of
evaluating community work. Anyway:





* The report is lengthy and very formal – is that really necessary? And why
is the background up front? An executive summary would be best, then a
run-through of the main points and leave background until the end. (Note
that the report itself recommends production of summaries.)



*  Overall, the report is strong on recognising issues but weak on solid
recommendations for fixing them.



* The recommendations that are there end up putting more work on already
over-worked individuals – staff and AC/SO chairs. Should find a way to
spread the load more. Why not vice-chairs? Why not assign community members
to produce summaries and send through to staff for review for accuracy?



* Very pleased to see recognition of value of sharing information – vital if
ICANN as an overall organization is to progress and if websites are to stay
current and not require complete overhaul in a few years’ time



* Need to consider internationalization of information i.e. material in
different languages, more extensively. Should be a crucial part of the
design from day one. Have to pull in non-English speakers in this process
and listen to them carefully. The report is weak on this point – not clear
what is actually being done or going to be done.



* Glad the CCT accepted ICANN staff’s advice that document management at
this stage is not advisable. But would like to see GNSO form a working
group, or, better, a cross-community group, to make sure that the effort to
standardize and create a document management system doesn’t stall as it has
several times in the past. Does the CCT know if such an effort is actually
being actively worked on by staff? If so, who is on the team and how often
do they meet?



* Re: working with ACs and SOs. Why not recommend that the GNSO issue a
formal invite to each AC/SO whenever a new working group is created inviting
them to nominate one person to sit in as an observer?



* Before GNSO produces papers, why not incorporate a formal window for
response by other AC/SOs before publishing?



* Very pleased to see some kind of metrics suggested for production of
documents in terms of writing clearly and without undue complexity
(Flesch-Kincaid
rating). Gives something concrete to work to. But a quick question: what is
Flesch-Kincaid rating of this report itself?



* Overall, the report recognises some key issues in effective communication
of the GNSO's work. Get these fixed and all sorts of positive knock-on
effects will result. But considering amount of time and effort CCT put in, I
would really have liked to have seen more solid recommendations and some
pressure brought to bear to make sure the recommendations were implemented.
I fear that this report may just become one among many and plans for
improvements lost because of the endless hectic work schedule.



Cheers for considering this input.



Kieren McCarthy