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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck
Olga

2010/9/28 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>