Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Actions/Summary: 01 Oct 2010 Meeting

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Julie.
Regards
Olga

2010/10/1 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>

>  Dear Work Team members,
>
> It appears that the document I attached may have been corrupted.  I am
> including it again for your reference.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> On 10/1/10 10:53 AM, "Julie Hedlund" <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
> *
>
>