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

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

Yes, that's a good idea!  I will do that.

Thanks,

Julie


On 8/28/09 3:42 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Claudio.  Julie - could you test that approach with the Staff team and 
if it seems doable we could modify our recommendations accordingly.

Chuck



________________________________
From: Claudio Di Gangi  [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 10:45  AM
To: 'Julie Hedlund'; Gomes, Chuck;  gnso-osc-csg
Subject: RE: For Review: Task 1, Subtask 4 -- Tool Kit  Recommendations





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