[gnso-osc-ccc] RE: Final CCT recommendations

["Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mason:

 

Please see email thread below.

 

Can we accommodate Chuck's request?  Is there anything you want me to do to
the final report or can we copy excerpts from my comments and paste them
where appropriate?

 

Please advise.

 

Ken

 

 

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:10 PM
To: Ken Bour; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Julie Hedlund; Scott Pinzon
Subject: [gnso-osc] RE: Final CCT recommendations

 

Thanks Ken.  So why not say that or something like it in the
recommendations.  As the report stands, it looks like this issue was just
glossed over and it obviously wasn't.

 

Chuck

 

  _____  

From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:20 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Robert Hoggarth'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Scott Pinzon'
Subject: FW: Final CCT recommendations

Chuck:

 

Perhaps I can help a bit with respect to the document management question
you raised.

 

It became clear to the team, working closely with ICANN I/T Staff, that
substantial improvements to both document management and collaboration would
be impractical to consider in the short-term, which we labeled Phase I.  The
BGC was certainly correct in highlighting those elements, but the major
challenge is that there are not clear technology solutions that are
compatible with our platform.  ICANN I/T is undertaking various product
reviews and internal tests with the objective of recommending workable
solutions down the road.  Once we have our new Drupal-based platform up and
running, we will be positioned to integrate whatever solutions are
recommended.  We reflected these team decisions in the Bus Requirements
Project Summary and also in Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4. 

 

To be sure, there are some minor doc management and collaboration
enhancements included in Phase I; however, most will occur in Phase II.  We
think we understand the business requirements for both of these enhancements
(separately documented); but, elected to defer them to a subsequent phase so
as not to overwhelm the most critically needed website improvements
including usability, navigation, search, content management, and
administration.   

 

Perhaps it would make sense for the OSC (or other standing committee) to
convene a new Work Team to consider these and, perhaps, other elements once
the new GNSO website is in production.

 

I hope that explanation helps.  I would be pleased to discuss with you
and/or answer any other questions that you may have.

 

Ken

 

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:14 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: Final CCT recommendations

 

Here are my comments regarding the CCT Recommendations Report.  I would very
much appreciate it if OSC members would honestly critique my comments.  Our
task as I see it is to either forward the CCT recommendations on to the
Council for action or to send the report back to the CCT for some more work.

 

First of all, the report demonstrates that the CCT WT did a lot of very
constructive work that resulted in some very helpful recommendations and
they should be complimented for that.  But my first reaction is that their
report may need a little more work to maximize their efforts.  In that
regard, here are some of my personal observations:

1.      It would be helpful if the Executive Summary provided a clearer
guide regarding what to expect in the report.  For example, it would be good
if, after the high level recommendations, there was a reference to Section 3
where more detail is provided with regard to the recommendations. 
2.      My understanding is that the CCT was tasked with developing a
proposed implementation plan for implementing Communications and
Coordination related recommendations from the Board.  The overall document
comes across more as another review of GNSO communications than an
implementation plan.  I think a lot of the work has been done to turn the
report into implementation recommendations, but I don't think it is there
yet.  With regard to specific recommendations: some of them are already very
much worded like implementation tasks; others lack the specificity to give
enough direction to serve as implementation guides. 
3.      One area that seems to be totally lacking in any specific sense is
that of cross SO/AC communications.  There is quite a bit discussion about
GNSO/Board communication and coordination but almost nothing about SO/AC
communications and coordination.  I think this is an area that needs more
attention and I believe that the BGC specifically intended such a focus. 

Following are two examples of specific recommendations that I think
illustrate some of what I tried to say in observation 2 above.

 

Example 1

 

" 2.4.1 GNSO Web site

. . . 

 

Recommendation

 

Develop new GNSO web site requirements:

 

*       Collaboration Tools 
*       Portal services 
*       Search capabilities 
*       Content management 
*       Business processes 
*       Shared services 
*       Languages other than English (Patrick Sharry p9 BC comments, Summary
of Board Actions p8, p12 3ii, 3iv. BCG/WG p. 42/43) 
*       Usability including review of Statistics (London
<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/gnso-review-report-sep06.pdf>  School
of Economics
(LSE) p12, Rec7, para 3.8 3.10, Summary of Board Actions p12 3iii) 
*       Search engine optimization and content inventory 
*       GNSO low external visibility. Non-technology recommendations
(LSE Rec 11, LSE p48 para 3.2, 3.5, 3.9. p56 3.17) 
*       Ability for Stakeholders to find out what is going on
(LSE p48 3.1, LSE Rec10)" 

This recommendation is very useful as an implementation guide and even more
so when complemented by 'APPENDIX D: BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS - GNSO
REPLACEMENT WEBSITE'.

 

Example 2

 

"3.2 Document Management

 

Due to the variety of computer platforms and operating systems and
application programs and versions in the ICANN community, any single
document management system would be very difficult to introduce. This is an
area for further study by a specialist. 

In the meantime a repository of good templates would be helpful. The GNSO
should also adopt practical guidelines for draft document versioning and FTP
storing."

 

With the exception of the suggestion of  'a repository of good templates',
this recommendation provides very little in terms guiding Staff in terms of
how to improve document management.  I think it is okay to recommend that
Staff do some work in this area, i.e., research document management tools,
but if that is what is recommended that should be stated.  In my opinion,
the WT was not tasked with doing the nitty gritty work in terms of defining
requirements for document management systems but, if the goal is to provide
implementation guidelines, then providing some criteria for effective
document management tools and processes would be helpful, as was done above
for the web site recommendations.

 

The CCT report acknowledges that they spent at least half of their time on
the web site and that time was extremely well spent because I believe that
the work they did there will benefit the GNSO in unending ways going
forward.  And I am sure that the WT members were anxiously and justifiably
trying to bring there work to a conclusion.  Also, I want to make clear that
I am not at all suggesting that they spend huge amounts of time on the other
recommendations as they did with the web site.  I think the time was well
spent there but I also think that by spending a little more time on the
other recommendations, they can be much more helpful from an implementation
point of view.

 

Some of the recommendations probably require more work than others.  A
couple that I think may not require a lot of time are these: "3.4 Languages;
3.5 Feedback Solicitation". I believe it may take a little more time for
"3.3 Collaboration Tools" and as already noted above "3.2 Document
Management".

 

Regarding what appears to be under "3.6 Board-GNSO Communications" appears
to be recommendations regarding general communications principles that would
apply across the board and not just to GNSO/Board communications.  

 

Chuck

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:30 PM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] FW: Final CCT recommendations

Here are the recommendations of the OSC Communications & Coordination WT
(CCT) for OSC review.  Please review and comment on these on the OSC list.
The next step would be to either forward the recommendations on for full
Council review with any minor edits we have or to send the recommendations
back to the CCT for more work.  If anyone thinks we need a teleconference
call to deal with this, please let me know.  Otherwise we will try to deal
with this on the list. 

 

Chuck

 

  _____  

From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:53 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-osc-ccc@xxxxxxxxx; julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Hoggarth; Ken
Bour
Subject: Final CCT recommendations

Chuck -

 

On behalf of the CCT, I'm attaching the team's final recommendations for
improvement of communications and coordination within the GNSO, between the
GNSO and the board, and between the GNSO and the rest of the community.  I
hope the OSC finds these recommendations useful.

 

The team is available to you for questions and updates as necessary.

 

Let me in particular express our thanks to the staff that was extremely
helpful as we went about our tasks.  Julie, Rob and Ken were always
available with their support, helpful suggestions, information and
professional capability.  They regularly made others at ICANN available to
us for consultation as we considered our task.  We're grateful to have had
them as part of our team.

 

Please contact me with any questions.

 

Best regards,

 

Mason Cole

CCT Chair