Summary and Analysis of Public Comments for CCT Final Consolidated Recommendations

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.