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

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

Thanks Olga.  Regarding my last comment, all I was suggesting is what you are 
planning to do in our next meeting.

 

Chuck

 

From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:12 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION NEEDED - comments from the OSC

 

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