[gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31
Dear work team, I hope you are doing well. I am including in this document comments from the OSC sent in relation with the the new version of our document. I will try to modify the document in order to consider these concerns, and then will send the document for your revision. If someone wants to join me in the effort please let me know. Regards Olga ........................................................... FROM RON ANDRUFF Philip, I read this iteration of the recommendation from the OSC CSG WT and, while it provides some further detail, it unfortunately overlooks one of the two questions I posed when the initial version was sent to the OSC, i.e., *“…the Work Team’s thinking behind the length of Committee member [OTF] terms, how to manage ‘institutional memory’ with members rotating off the committee, and so forth?”* As I read section 2.1.2, the last para notes: The Charter should establish an initial term for the OTF of two years. After this period a review should be conducted to review the success of the OTF’s initiatives and, if deemed successful, the OTF’s charter could be extended annually. Otherwise no information in regard to my questions can be found in the document. The issue that I am struggling with is with regard to what does the size of OTF look like and what is the expectation for member rotation out and in? How many members in total; how many on the Steering Committee; are there staggered terms to ensure smooth transitions of departing and arriving members, or does the entire team get replaced wholesale, thus tasking the VP Communications staff member with maintaining institutional memory? The WT may feel that the GNSO Council will work these issues out, but my sense is that the OSC CSG WT could provide more considered guidance to Council, having discussed and debated these issues in their deliberations. Either way, the OSC needs to know this information before we can send the recommendations to the GNSO, in my view. The recommendations clearly detail all that the things that the OTF will have on its plate so it would be helpful to know from the WT what it is thinking in terms of how many people the OTF will need to get the job done (and how the initial OTF will facilitate replacement volunteers when terms are up). Thank you. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President ................................................................. FROM MASON COLE Philip, Ron and others – Thanks for the new iteration of the recommendations. In addition to Ron’s useful questions and comments, I would like to offer the following: 1. There is a clear message here that additional participation in the GNSO should be encouraged; however, there’s no statement I can find relating to an end objective (even in the BGC summary). Participation seems to be encouraged for its own sake – an objective with which I don’t disagree, but I believe the OTF would be able to orient its work much more quickly and efficiently if it were able to give participants a tangible reason (a “what’s in it for you”) reason for participating. Another way to look at it might be to consider an answer to the question: We’ll know the OTF is successful when what, specifically, happens? 2. Related to the above, I suggest it would be useful for the OTF to consider metrics for, first, benchmarking and, second, measuring progress against objectives for participation. This would be very useful in not only measuring its own success, but in reporting to the community how the community’s resources were expended and what results were achieved due to those expenditures. I don’t mean this as critically as it may sound, but I am wary of the sometimes tendency for various ICANN groups to expend resources without a clearly defined objective or goal. We should definitely encourage participation but should guard against any tendency to meander.