[gnso-osc-csg] RE: For Review: Task 1, Subtask 4 -- Tool Kit Recommendations

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Julie.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:17 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; Claudio DiGangi; gnso-osc-csg
        Subject: Re: For Review: Task 1, Subtask 4 -- Tool Kit
Recommendations
        
        
        Claudio, thanks also for your very helpful comments!  See my
notes below in red as well.
        
        Julie
        
        
        On 8/26/09 3:09 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
        
        

                Thanks for the excellent feedack Claudio.  Please see my
responses below.
                
                Chuck
                
                

                        
                         
                        
________________________________

                        From: Claudio Di Gangi
[mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx] 
                        Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:25  PM
                        To: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-osc-csg
                        Cc: Gomes,  Chuck
                        Subject: RE: For Review: Task 1, Subtask 4 --
Tool Kit  Recommendations
                        
                         
                         
                         
                        
                        Dear  Julie:
                        
                        
                        
                        Thanks to you &  Chuck for your work on this
well-drafted document.  
                        
                        
                        
                        I have a few  comments: 
                        
                        
                        
                        Can you clarify why  the "Provide grants/funding
for constituencies to provide their own  support" 
                        
                        service proposal  was not included as a CSG WT
recommendation?
                        [Gomes,  Chuck] Your feedback is the first we
have received on this.  I don't  think we received any feedback from any
of the constituencies.  I am not  opposed to adding this but we might
want to think a little more about how the  funding amount would be
decided.  It wouldn't work to just leave it open  ended.  Do you have
any ideas in that  regard. 
                        
                        Julie - We didn't get any feedback on this from
constituencies.  From a staff point of view I believe it could be
difficult to be specific about the funding amount but I also see a
problem with this being open ended.  I also welcome any ideas you may
have.
                        
                         
                        I note this is  ranked 8th on the chart on the
top of page 2.  Going back to the survey  results document (Appendix C),
however, I note that it was tied for second in  the number of
respondents that gave it the highest priority (5 on a 1 to 5  scale) --
13 of 28 did so.  
                        
                        
                        
                        Since there is  considerable support for this
approach, my suggestion would be to add this to  the list of CSG TW
recommendations. 
                        
                        
                        
                        Another reason for  including it is that
constituencies & SG should not have to depend upon  staff to perform
functions that may be a low priority for the staff (see  recommendation
2) but important to a particular  constituency.  For example, hosting
and maintaining constituency  websites is item f on the list
recommendations on the bottom of page  2. If a constituency determines
that in fact this function is an  important one for which it needs
support, and if staff is not available to  provide it, the constituency
should be able to obtain it from an outside  source. Funds should be
made available for this  purpose. 
                        
                        
                        
                        Two other  comments: 
                        
                        
                        
                        The  top-ranked task is "assembling background
and reference materials for  working groups."  Assuming that this refers
to working groups convened by  GNSO to deal with specific policy issues,
this is not a matter of constituency  operations at all.  It describes
an activity that staff is already  performing, and only indirectly is it
part of a toolkit offered to  constituencies.  It is equally offered to
any of the participants who  join a working group without a constituency
affiliation.  Perhaps I am  missing something but this seems out of
place.  
                        [Gomes, Chuck] I thought the same thing when I
first drafted the recommendations but Staff thought it should be
included  so we added it back in.  I will let Julie comment and then we
can  discuss it  further. 
                        
                        Julie - We had left this out but when we
circulated the draft document among staff at least a couple commented
that as this was the top response in the survey and it was something
that was already being provided, it should be included.  I see your
point and agree that, strictly speaking, the task does not relate
directly to constituency support.  I'm not opposed to taking it out.
                        
                        Finally, under item  1(g), "organizational
recordkeeping," I suggest adding a reference to  financial records.
Keeping the constituency's books could be a useful  service for the
staff to perform.
                        [Gomes,  Chuck] I am fine with  that. 
                        
                        Julie - I am fine with that too.
                        
                        
                        
                        Hope the group  finds these comments helpful,
thanks for considering  them.
                        
                        
                        
                        Claudio
                        
                        
                        
                          

                        
                        
________________________________


                        
                        
                        From:  owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
                        Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:21  AM
                        To:  gnso-osc-csg
                        Cc: Chuck  Gomes
                        Subject: [gnso-osc-csg]  For Review: Task 1,
Subtask 4 -- Tool Kit  Recommendations
                        
                        
                        
                        Dear Work Team  members:
                        
                        Attached for your review is a draft of
recommendations (in  Word and .pdf) for elements to be included in a
tool kit of services for  Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups.  These
also are posted to the wiki  at:
https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team.
                        
                        Here  are the anticipated next steps:
                         
                        

                        1.      Feedback and approval from the  Work
Team;   
                        2.      Distribution to the full OSC  for
review, comment, and approval;   
                        3.      Distribution to the GNSO  Council for
review and action; and   
                        4.      Implementation.  
                                

                        
                        
                        As the first step, we look  forward to receiving
feedback from you on the recommendations.  Please  let me know if you
have any questions.
                        
                        Thank you.
                        
                        Best  regards,
                        
                        Julie