Summary and Analysis of Public Comments for CCT Final Consolidated Recommendations
Summary and analysis of public comments for: GNSO Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) Final Consolidated Recommendations Comment period ended: 16 May 2010 Summary published: 17 May 2010 Preparation by: Julie Hedlund, Policy Director I. BACKGROUND The report under consideration in the public comment forum is the product of a cross-constituency Communications and Coordination Work Team (CCT) that was chartered by the GNSO's Operations Steering Committee (OSC) in March 2009 to review and recommend implementation proposals concerning certain sections of the Board Governance Committee's GNSO Review Working Group Report on GNSO Improvements (3 February 2008 see link below) including: * Developing new GNSO website requirements including document management and collaboration tools; * Improving the GNSO's ability to solicit meaningful feedback; and * Improving the GNSO's coordination with other ICANN structures. The CCT's Final Consolidated Recommendations Report (link below) was approved by the OSC and forwarded to the Council effective 9 April 2010. The GNSO Council Resolution inviting public comment was made on 21 April 2010. Document Links: The recommendations and related documents were provided to the community at the following links: * CCT Final Consolidated Recommendations: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cct-consolidated-report-final-09apr10-en.pdf * CCT Wiki Space: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_team * CCT Charter: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_work_team_charte r * GNSO Council Resolution Inviting Public Comment: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?21_april_motions * The Board¹s GNSO Improvements Report (3 Feb 2008): http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb 08.pdf II. GENERAL COMMENTS & CONTRIBUTORS The public comment period was opened on 23 April 2010 and closed on 16 May 2010. At the time this summary was prepared, a total of four community submissions were posted to the forum. One comment was unrelated to the topic at hand; thus, there were three relevant comments. The contributors are listed below in order of posting (with initials noted in parentheses). The initials will be used in the foregoing narrative to identify specific contributions. * Kieren McCarthy (KM) * GNSO gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Statement (RySG) * ALAC Statement on GNSO CCT Recommendations (ALAC) III. SUMMARY & ANALYSIS This document is intended to broadly and comprehensively summarize the comments of the contributors to this forum but not to address every specific argument or position stated by the contributors. The Staff recommends that readers interested in specific aspects of the summarized comments or the full context refer directly to the specific contributions. Summary of Comments by KM KM noted that when he was at ICANN he was involved in the effort to move all ICANN websites to a single database and liaised with ICANN staff supporting the CCT, particularly with respect to website improvements. He notes that although his comments are largely critical, this is primarily due to the structure of the public comment forum, which requires contributors to provide feedback. His preference would be for a system that allowed contributors to grade the overall quality of a report, point out its good aspects and/or vote in favor of recommendations. The comments from KM are grouped in three categories: 1) report structure; 2) strengths and weaknesses; and 3) additional recommendations. Report Structure KM noted that the report is too long and formal. In particular, KM said that it would have been helpful to have an executive summary at the beginning and to place the background at the end of the document. Strengths and Weaknesses With respect to strengths, KM said the report recognized some key issues in effective communication. He also noted that it emphasized the value of sharing information. KM added that the report included a helpful recommendation to use metrics to determine whether a document was too complex. However, KM identified several weaknesses. Overall, he said the report needed more solid recommendations and a clear plan to ensure they are implemented. He added that its recommendations also put more work on already overworked individuals. Moreover, KM thought the report should have considered internationalization of information more extensively. Additional Recommendations KM had several additional recommendations. First, he suggested that the work could be spread to vice-chairs and that community members could be assigned to produce summaries. Second, he suggested that there could be a GNSO Working Group or cross-community group that could move ahead with recommendations on the document management system. Third, he recommended that the GNSO could invite the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations to nominate participants on Working Groups. Finally, KM recommended that the GNSO could formally invite the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations to respond to GNSO papers before they are published. Summary of Comments by RySG The RySG statement notes that the RySG supports the CCT recommendations and encourages timely implementation and adequate funding of the ICANN FY11 Operating Plan and Budget. The RySG supported the recommendations with a vote of 10 of its 14 eligible members, which is, as noted, a ³supermajority² level of support. Summary of Comments by ALAC In its statement the ALAC notes that it ³generally supports the CCT Final Consolidated Recommendations.² In particular, the ALAC supports recommendations relating to facilitation of community input and feedback during the policy development process, increased clarity in documents, recognition of use of documents by non-English speakers and the need for translation, and increased communications and cooperation between Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. However, although the ALAC supports the recommendation that the Working Group charters define the issue(s) to be addressed, they do have some concerns with charters including ³outcomes desired.² On the contrary, the ALAC suggests that the outcomes should be crafted based on the Working Group¹s investigations and discussions. IV. NEXT STEPS This Summary Analysis document will be shared with GNSO Council members.