Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION REQUESTED: Task 2 Outreach Document for Review

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Claudio, Chuck and Krista for the feedback, very valuable.
Claudio, see my comments to your email below.
Other subworking team mebers are also welcome to comment on these regards
and about recieved feedback.
Talk to you tomorrow.
best regards
Olga

2010/8/25 Claudio Di Gangi <cdigangi@xxxxxxxx>

>  Congratulations to the subgroup for producing this document. I will try
> to make the call on Friday, but may not be able to join due to a reoccurring
> conflict at that time.
>
>
>
> While I think there some good ideas in this paper, I have concerns with
> forming another committee as a "centralized authority in the GNSO" (page 4),
> especially one chosen solely by the Board Public Participation Committee
> (page 5). Instead, my recommendation is that enhanced outreach efforts
> should build on what constituencies and stakeholder groups are already doing
> and channel outreach efforts through those groups to a considerable
> degree.  If such a committee is to be formed as part of the effort, it
> should be recruited/selected at the GNSO level and should have a finite life
> span (sunset date) unless extended.
>

We discussed this issue extensively among us, those of us coming from the
developing world find value in the formation of this committee.

>
>
> The first goal of this effort should be to establish a baseline of what
> outreach efforts are currently being undertaken.  Otherwise, duplication and
> a lack of coordination are inevitable.
>
>
>
> For instance see page 3 with reference to IGF attendance statistics.  What
> are the comparable statistics for ICANN?
>

I do not have in mind those, perhaps Julie or Robert could add some light
here. What I do remember are numbers of statement of interest in the noncom
selection process, there you can see a really unbalanced representation of
regions and gender, this informaton you can find in the noncom link in ICANN
web page.

>
>
> A number of the proposals seem to be about ICANN outreach generally and are
> not focused on the GNSO.  See, for example, the discussion of universities
> at the bottom of page 3.  See also bottom of page 8 (how does inviting
> entities to events further outreach if those entities are not even "GNSO
> stakeholders"?).
>

I  teach in universities in Latin America as regular professor or as invited
one, and I have never seen a unversity being part of a constituency. But may
be I am wrong, if someone else has information on this regard I am happy to
review it.

>
>
> Can the subgroup clarify what is the justification for additional outreach
> efforts to GNSO registries and registrars?  If these entities do not already
> understand the strong economic incentives for participation in the
> organization that makes their businesses possible (through accreditation of
> registrars, delegation to registries), then further outreach efforts will be
> fruitless.
>

Claudio, in Latin America (more than 300 million pops and thousands of ISPs)
there are only six accredited registrars in the whole region. Others can add
figures from other regions as well, in my modest oppinion an outreach effort
would help developing these commercial channels that are not present there.
Similar complexity is when a government, institution or company tries to
understand what a  new gtlds is and the coming process and the roles of Rir
and registrars.

>
>
> The proposal does not recognize that engaging new players through an
> outreach effort will be pointless and counter-productive unless those
> players can have some confidence that, if they participate, their voices
> will be heard.  In other words, the committee's focus should be on outreach
> and empowerment, not outreach alone.  (In this regard, an effective contract
> compliance program, in which the complaints of non-contracted parties are
> promptly and effectively acted upon, will be an important element of any
> outreach strategy.)
>

Claudio, could you clarify this a little bit more?

>
>
> Finally, as I understand the current climate of fiscal austerity within
> ICANN, it would be helpful for proposals for increased resources for
> outreach to be matched with proposals for which programs should receive
> reduced resources.
>


>
> claudio
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 25, 2010 3:24 PM
> *To:* Olga Cavalli; OSC-CSG Work Team
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION REQUESTED: Task 2 Outreach Document
> for Review
>
>
>
> My compliments to the sub-group for all the work.  My comments, questions
> and possible edits are highlighted in the attached file.  Warning: there are
> a lot of them, but please don’t take that in a critical way.  I simply
> shared all the thoughts that came to mind as I reviewed the document as a
> new comer.  It may be in some cases that I misread the intent or did not
> understand the rationale behind the recommendations.
>
>
>
> I will be happy to discuss my input with the sub-group and/or the full WT,
> but I may not be able to make the call this coming Friday or the following
> Friday.  On 27 August I will be in Tokyo for an ICANN Registry/Registrar
> regional meeting.  On 2 September I will be on vacation.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli
> *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2010 5:13 PM
> *To:* OSC-CSG Work Team
> *Subject:* Fwd: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION REQUESTED: Task 2 Outreach Document
> for Review
>
>
>
> Thanks Julie!
> Please note that this document is for f*ull Work Team Review!!!*
> Ideally we should agree in a final text next Friday and then we can send it
> to the OSC.
> Comments are welcome.
> Best regards
> Olga
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Julie Hedlund* <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2010/8/23
> Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION REQUESTED: Task 2 Outreach Document for
> Review
> To: gnso-osc-csg <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Dear Work Team members,
>
> At our sub-team meeting last Friday, the Work Team asked me to edit the
> latest version of the draft Task 2 working document to clean it up and
> prepare it for review by the full Work Team.
>
> *Your action is requested:* The attached draft Task 2 Working Document is
> ready for your review.  Please send comments to the list or, if you have
> specific edits, please include them as tracked edits and send them to me no
> later than  *1900 UTC/1200 PDT/1500 EDT on Thursday, 26 August,* so that I
> may incorporate them into a revised document for discussion at our regular
> meeting on *Friday, 27 August at 1300 UTC.*
>
> *Please note:*  The document is now being discussed at the *full Work Team
> level* so we urge you to comment on the document and to attend Friday’s
> meeting.  The document also has been posted to the wiki page at:
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team.
>
> Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>