RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Olga I am happy to help, were there additional comments or just those in the
body of the email below?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

 

Vice-President,

Product Development

Afilias

O: +14166734109

C: +16472891220

 

From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: October-23-10 7:46 PM
To: OSC-CSG Work Team
Subject: [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.