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

[MICHAEL YOUNG <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I¹m very sorry but unfortunately I have a call conflict today that I cannot
resolve.  I will continue to monitor the list to assist where ever I can.

Thanks much,

Michael Young


On 10-09-29 6:34 PM, "HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Correction ­ I look forward to our call on Friday?
>  
>  
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 6:13 PM
> To: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cdigangi@xxxxxxxx;
> olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION NEEDED - comments from the OSC
>  
> I also like this new language, Michael.
>  
> I appreciate the comments from the OSC about scope, goals and outputs of these
> outreach efforts, which was an issue I raised early in the process.  In May,
> the sub-group suggested input from the OSC about the nature of outreach
> activities that should be included in our recommendation and we were advised
> to refer to the BGC report.  In hindsight, perhaps a quick email or call with
> the OSC would have provided helpful guidance for the sub-group.
>  
> I look forward to tomorrow¹s discussions.
>  
> Debbie
>  
>  
> 
> Debra Y. Hughes l Senior Counsel
> American Red Cross
> 
> Office of the General Counsel
> 2025 E Street, NW
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 303-5356
> Fax: (202) 303-0143
> HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:41 AM
> To: Michael Young; Claudio Di Gangi; Olga Cavalli; OSC-CSG Work Team
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION NEEDED - comments from the OSC
>  
> This is a good improvement to the previous language in my opinion.  Thanks
> Michael.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> 
> From: Michael Young [mailto:myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:17 AM
> To: 'Claudio Di Gangi'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Olga Cavalli'; 'OSC-CSG Work Team'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] ACTION NEEDED - comments from the OSC
>  
> 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.² 
>  
> 
> 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: ³IN 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.²  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 environment¹.   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 <http://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 Committee¹s 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 Team¹s recommendations with interest and find it on the
> whole to be a good work product.  I am particularly encouraged by the
> considerations given to ?translations¹ 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: ³The 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.²  I don¹t understand this
> sentence.  Can we get some clarification, as well as the Work Team¹s thinking
> behind the length of Committee member terms, how to manage ?institutional
> memory¹ with members rotating off the committee, and so forth?
>  
> 2.1.2.1 Representation on the Committee, 4th para notes: ³Committee 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.²  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 ICANN¹s
> principles of diversity, the committee¹s first priority (vis-à-vis selection
> criteria) should be based on an individual¹s 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
>  
>  
>  
>