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

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Suggested edited version, I think this version incorporates the list
concerns and still stands as a  useful statement.

 

 

IN GENERAL, 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. INTRODUCING NEW, POTENTIONAL, ACTIVE PARTICPANTS IN DEVELOPING
REGIONS TO THE ICANN PROCESS SHOULD BE A PRIMARY MISSION GOAL OF THE
OUTREACH EFFORTS.? 

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

Vice-President,

Product Development

Afilias

O: +14166734109

C: +16472891220

 

From: Claudio Di Gangi [mailto:cdigangi@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: September-28-10 4:52 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Olga Cavalli; OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION NEEDED - comments from the OSC

 

I agree with Chuck on the point below.

 

I tried previously to articulate this concern, but I could have been more
clear in my expressing my views.

 

claudio

 

From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 9:25 AM
To: Olga Cavalli; OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION NEEDED - comments from the OSC

 

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