RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION NEEDED - comments from the OSC

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

Olga,

 

I have concerns about the following statement you made: "IN GENERAL MORE 
COMPETITION IN ANY MARKET HELPS BROADEN THE CONSUMER BASE WITH BETTER SERVICES 
AND LOWER PRICES.  CONSIDERING THAT REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS ARE ALMOST NOT 
PRESENT IN DEVELOPING REGIONS, AN OUTREACH EFFORT MAY ENCOURAGE NEW ACTORS FROM 
THESE REGIONS TO BE PART OF THE ICANN PROCESS IN BECOMING ACCREDITED REGISTRARS 
OR EVEN REGISTRIES. A WIDER COMPETITIVE INVIRONMENT SHOULD BE THE MISSION OF 
THE OUTREACH EFFORTS."  It seems to me that this is going beyond the goal of 
outreach and is beyond the task of the GNSO improvements effort.  The goals our 
reasonable but I am not sure it is the goal of outreach to create a 'wider 
competitive environment'.   When we start trying to do that, I fear we will 
find ourselves in the middle between various competitors.

 

Speaking with my VeriSign hat, I can tell you that we support the goals that 
you state.  In fact, as you know, we have devoted quite a lot of time and 
resources to the goals you state, starting with Latin America where our 
marketing and outreach has resulted in the addition of several registrars where 
before there were none.  In addition to that, we have provided marketing 
incentives for existing registrars not located in Latin America to expand their 
services in Latin America, thereby hopefully avoiding channel conflict with our 
customers, the registrars.  We have also expanded and are continuing to expand 
our efforts to include other developing regions of the world.

 

That said, I am personally in favor of the goals you state, but I am not sure 
they are appropriate for GNSO outreach efforts.  But I would like to hear what 
others think.

 

With regard to the other issues raised by Ron and Steve, I support the 
suggestion that the CSG WT discuss them and develop responses for the OSC.

 

Chuck

 

 

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 4:02 PM
To: OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION NEEDED - comments from the OSC

 

Hi,
please note the comments sent from Steve Metalitz.
I also include MINE COMMENTS IN CAPS to our team to start exchanging ideas.
Other comments are welcome, also about my previous email on this regard.
Olga

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Metalitz, Steven <met@xxxxxxx>
Date: 2010/9/21
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption 
September 24
To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx



Philip and colleagues, 

 

I endorse much of what Ron says below.  I also offer a few general observations 
and a couple of specific questions.   

 

First, personally I am skeptical that the best way to broaden participation in 
the GNSO is to create a new and permanent standing committee, with all that 
implies in terms of start-up efforts and staff support.  My experience is that 
there are real dangers that such a committee, instead of advancing the 
objectives laid out in the first paragraph of section 2.1.1, will instead 
disperse human and financial resources, create inefficiencies, and increase 
duplication of effort.  However, I know that the Work Team members studied this 
issue in some depth and I am happy to defer to them if they believe this is the 
best approach.    

 

Second, it strikes me that that outreach goals may be quite different with 
regard to the stakeholder groups in the two GNSO houses. 

 In the non-contracted party house, it is apparent that many businesses, 
intellectual property owners, ISP and connectivity providers, and 
non-commercial organizations that are strongly affected by ICANN decisions do 
not participate in the organization, and specifically in the GNSO.  

I AGREE WITH THIS, THIS IS WHY I THINK OUTREACH IS IMPORTANT

 I wonder whether this is true in the contracted party house.  Certainly most 
registries seem already to be active participants in the registries stakeholder 
group, and the same is true of the major registrars, although I acknowledge 
that probably a number of registrars do not participate.  In any case the 
outreach challenges seem to be very different between the two groups.  I 
question whether such activities directed to registries and registrars is a 
wise use of ICANN resources.  If these entities cannot already see for 
themselves the value of participation in the organization without which they 
could not even be in business, then I wonder whether outreach efforts will 
change that mindset.  If, instead, the goal of outreach efforts is to encourage 
more companies to seek to become accredited registrars (for example), again 
that is qualitatively different from the challenge on the non-contracted party 
side.  ICANN has no need to encourage anyone to become a business, 
non-commercial organization, etc., affected by ICANN; rather the focus should 
be on encouraging those such entities that already exist to become active 
within GNSO.  The goal of outreach efforts among the contracted parties should 
be more clearly stated.  

THE ROLE OF OUTREACH EFFORTS IN THE CONTRACTED HOUSE SHOUDL BE MAINLY EXTENDING 
THE ROLE OF REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS IN A MORE BALANCED WAY TO THE DEVELOPING 
WORLD.
IN GENERAL MORE COMPETITION IN ANY MARKET HELPS BROADEN THE CONSUMER BASE WITH 
BETTER SERVICES AND LOWER PRICES.
CONSIDERING THAT REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS ARE ALMOST NOT PRESENT IN DEVELOPING 
REGIONS, AN OUTREACH EFFORT MAY ENCOURAGE NEW ACTORS FROM THESE REGIONS TO BE 
PART OF THE ICANN PROCESS IN BECOMING ACCREDITED REGISTRARS OR EVEN REGISTRIES.
A WIDER COMPETITIVE INVIRONMENT SHOULD BE THE MISSION OF THE OUTREACH EFFORTS.

IN MY MODEST OPPINION THERE IS ALSO A VERY UNBALANCED PARTICIPATION OF SEVERAL 
NON CONTRACTED ACTORS IN GNSO, SO THIS COULD BE AN ADDITIONAL MISSION OF THE 
OUTREACH EFFORTS.

 

Third, I note that the thrust of the BGC WG report (as quoted in section 1.1) 
was on what the staff should do to improve outreach.  It would be helpful if 
the report could be clearer on which activities should be undertaken by staff 
and which should rely on volunteers.  To give one example, when it is stated 
that "the Committee should coordinate the development of robust Workshop 
materials," (section 2.2.2.1), who is expected to do the developing of these 
materials?     

THIS IS A GOOD POINT ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY OF THE EFFOR. IF THE COMMITTEE IS 
WISELY INVOLVED WITH UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS INTERESTED IN ICANN 
PROCESS,THE PREPARATION OF SUCH MATERIALS SHOLD NOT BE VERY EXPENSIVE AS A 
COOPERATIVE EFFORT COULD BE DONE.
THIS IS ALSO ONE OF THE MISSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.

 

A few specific comments: 

 

Section 2.1.2.1:  it is hard to imagine that a person "new to ICANN" could make 
an effective contribution to the work of a small outreach committee. Of course 
the input of such people should be solicited and taken very seriously. 

WE COULD GIVE SOME EXAMPLES HERES.

 

Same:  The presence of  committee members from the Registry or Registrar SG 
should depend on clarification of the outreach mission with regard to these 
groups, as noted above.  

 

Section 2.1.3:  Has there been an independent evaluation of the ICANN 
Fellowship program that supports the statement "the Fellowship program proved 
that investing in young participants and developing young experts is 
worthwhile"?  

WE CAN ASK, I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS EVALUATION.

 

Section 2.1.5:  The following sentence under "maximizing use of events" should 
be clarified:  "the Committee's global outreach strategy should include 
efficient use of ICANN events
to ensure that multiple local trade and industry associations, non-governmental
organizations, academic institutions and civil society organizations are 
represented at
these events, even if they are not GNSO stakeholders."   All the entities 
listed are eligible for membership in either the commercial or non-commercial 
stakeholder group.  Perhaps it would be clearer to state "even if they are not 
currently active in GNSO stakeholder groups."   

 

I would certainly welcome any responses from the Work Team members or from 
others on the OSC regarding the above points.  

 

Steve Metalitz

 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Philip Sheppard

Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 4:29 AM
To: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption 
September 24

Debbie,

Ron raises some valid questions for clarification here.

Please let us know.

Philip

Chair OSC

 

________________________________

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:14 PM
To: 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption 
September 24

Chair,

 

I read the CSG Work Team's recommendations with interest and find it on the 
whole to be a good work product.  I am particularly encouraged by the 
considerations given to 'translations' as this is one of the pillars that will 
support ICANN as it matures into a truly global institution.  Clearly, outreach 
is a very important and heretofore underserved component of ICANN and the 
initiatives noted in the recommendations are solid steps in the right 
direction.  A lot of good ideas but, as we all know, the devil is in the 
details and thus there is considerable work still ahead of us in this area.

 

I have a couple of things that I wondered if the OSC might get some 
clarification on, as follows: 

 

2.1.2 Membership of the Committee, 2nd paragraph notes: "The Committee 
membership should be long enough to allow the participation of host country and 
neighboring nations, and to leverage the outreach events and alert as many 
relevant parties to effectuate goals and activities."  I don't understand this 
sentence.  Can we get some clarification, as well as the Work Team's thinking 
behind the length of Committee member terms, how to manage 'institutional 
memory' with members rotating off the committee, and so forth?

 

2.1.2.1 Representation on the Committee, 4th para notes: "Committee members 
should cooperate with the ICANN Fellowship selection team to be able to invite 
up to ten key people to each ICANN event, who may include people who represent 
numerous groups, such as leaders of academia, business associations, and 
non-governmental organizations."  Again, I do not understand what the sentence 
means, particularly who is being invited where?  Some background would 
hopefully bring some clarity to the intent.

 

My comment in regard to the first paragraph in this section (re: 
representation) is that with such a small committee, notwithstanding ICANN's 
principles of diversity, the committee's first priority (vis-à-vis selection 
criteria) should be based on an individual's qualifications in the realm of 
outreach rather than their gender or sector of the GNSO community from which 
they come.  The second priority (which some may argue should be the first) is 
geo location for all of the obvious reasons.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:23 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption 
September 24

 

Fellow OSC members, 

please find attached the final piece of work from the various teams within the 
OSC.

It is a recommendation on outreach from the CSG team, chaired by Olga Cavalli, 
in an effort led by Debbie Hughes.

Let me have your comments with a view to OSC adoption by September 24.

 

After which, assuming a positive reception, we will send it to the GNSO Council.

 

Philip

OSC Chair