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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
see my comments below and many thanks for yours.
Regards
Olga

2010/9/26 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.
>

Maybe you are right, it could be good if we can still keep some goals trying
to capture this idea and not going beyond what is expected from an outreach
activity, you are welcome to suggest changes to the original text.

>
>
> 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.
>

I know.

>
>
> 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.
>

In my modest oppinion, outreach is the first step towards this goal, but
maybe we can refrase it and keep the idea.

>
>
> 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.
>

Sorry Chuck, could you clarify this comment? I may have lost the suggestion
in some email I did not see...

Regards and thanks
Olga

>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>