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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Claudio,

Thank you for your very helpful suggestion.  I will include it in the revised 
version of the document.

Best regards,

Julie


On 8/28/09 10:45 AM, "Claudio DiGangi" <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Julie & Chuck,

Thank you.

On the "Provide grants/funding for constituencies to provide their own support" 
option:

My recommendation, which I believe is a common practice for companies, is that 
the ICANN Finance Dept. assist staff in estimating the amount of staff time 
required for a particular task and come up with a commensurate figure for 
outsourcing that task.

Claudio



________________________________

From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:17 PM
To: Chuck Gomes; Claudio Di Gangi; 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