[gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 01 Oct 2010 Meeting
Dear Work Team members, Here are the summary and actions from the meeting on 01 Oct. Please let me know if you have any changes or questions. These also are posted to our wiki at: https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team. I have attached the document discussed on the call — the outreach recommendations with OSC and Work Team comments. Olga and I will work on the next iteration of the document and the Work Team will be requested to comment on the list. Based on the comments, we will decide whether to hold a meeting on Friday, 08 October at 1300 UTC. Best regards, Julie The Work Team discussed the comments from the OSC and WT members on the document sent to the OSC on 10 September. They addressed several concerns as follows. 1) Need for a Committee: With respect to the concern about the need for a Committee and possible resulting bureaucracy, the WT suggested that a larger Task Force could be created, in lieu of a Committee, but with a smaller Steering Committee. The Task Force would be large enough to allow for diversity of membership, but the inclusion of a small Steering Committee could prevent the group from becoming bureaucratic. (This also relates to a comment provided by Ron Andruff.) In addition, the Steering Committee could include representatives from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies who are engaged in outreach efforts in those groups, to avoid duplication of effort. 2) Timing of the Committee: The Work Team also addressed the concern that the Task Force should be time-delimited but suggesting that it should be established for an initial term of 2 years followed by a review. If the review determines that the work of the Task Force should continue, its charter could be renewed annually. 3) Differences in Outreach Efforts/Principles: In addition, the Work Team suggested that to addresses concerns about differences in outreach efforts among the various stakeholder groups and constituencies, the Task Force should have some principles. These could include that 1) outreach to potential participants to the Commercial Stakeholder Groups is different from outreach to the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups; 2) there are communities that are not well-represented in the GNSO and outreach efforts should target these communities; 3) outreach should originate from a variety of sources, not just from stakeholder groups and constituencies. 4) Accountability/Measurement: With respect to concerns about accountability mechanisms, the Work Team suggested that the first objective of the Task Force would be to conduct a survey of existing GNSO outreach activities by the stakeholder groups, constituencies, and ICANN, including the Fellowship program. The Task Force could analyze the effectiveness of existing efforts, such as whether they have increased membership and participation, and whether fellows have continued to be active in ICANN, and used these data to determine where there are gaps in order to develop recommendations for additional outreach activities. Concerning the issue of targeting outreach to Registrar's and Registries (the language suggested by Michael), these activities could be tied to the new gTLD process. 5) Balancing Outreach Efforts: Finally, concerning the necessity for balance, while the Work Team agreed that universities are under-represented in ICANN, it noted that there should be a balance with outreach to businesses, non-governmental, and other entities. However, the Work Team added that targeting outreach to universities could be an effective way to bring in other new participants. ACTIONS: Olga agreed to edit the document and send it to Julie to review and edit. Julie will send it to the Work Team for review and Tony agreed to help with further edits. The Work Team will review the document on the list and decide whether an additional meeting is necessary on Friday, 08 October.
OSC Constituency & S#79323C.doc