Fwd: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31
Dear Julie, please be so kind to prepare the final new version of the document so I send it to the OSC by tomorrow. many thanks and regards Olga ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx> Date: 2010/11/4 Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31 To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-osc-csg <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx> Dear Olga and Work Team members, I have reviewed the modified version provided by Olga and made some additional changes that are highlighted in redline in the attached document. First, I called out more clearly the goals for the outreach program as stipulated in the BGC WG Report in Section 1.1 Background to attempt to address Mason's comments. Note that the goals were included in the original document in the text quoted from the BGC WG Report, but I have listed them separately to make them more clear. Second, I made some very minor grammatical edits in the new text provided by Olga. Please let me know if you would like me to make any additional changes. Thank you. Best regards, Julie On 11/2/10 12:38 PM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear working team friends, > Please chech the modified version and send comments as soon as possible. > If I do not hear from you by next Friday I will take silence as an ok > and will send the doc to the OSC. > Best regards > Olga > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: 2010/11/1 > Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach > Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31 > To: Michael Young <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, OSC-CSG Work Team > <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Hi, > I am attaching a version with some text additions related to what the > OSC pointed out. > Please review them and feel free to add more ideas and text if needed. > Julie, the background information about the BCG report that you sent > to me has been already included in the introductory part, right? If > not please be so kind to introduce it. > Looking forward for your comments. > Regards > Olga > > > 2010/10/27 Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Thanks Michael >> Comments are only the ones included in my email. >> I will draft some changes a will send to you hopefuly today. >> Regards >> Olga >> >> Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar (http://www.movistar.com.ar) >> >> ________________________________ >> From: "Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:16:49 -0400 >> To: 'Olga Cavalli'<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>; 'OSC-CSG Work >> Team'<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach >> Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31 >> >> 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., ³Šthe >> Work Team¹s thinking behind the length of Committee member [OTF] terms, how >> to manage Œinstitutional memory¹ with members rotating off the committee, >> and so forth?² >> >> >> >> 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 OTF¹s initiatives and, if deemed >> successful, the OTF¹s 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 Ron¹s >> useful questions and comments, I would like to offer the following: >> >> >> >> There is a clear message here that additional participation in the GNSO >> should be encouraged; however, there¹s 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 don¹t 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 >> ³what¹s in it for you²) reason for participating. Another way to look at it >> might be to consider an answer to the question: We¹ll know the OTF is >> successful when what, specifically, happens? >> 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 >> community¹s resources were expended and what results were achieved due to >> those expenditures. >> >> >> >> I don¹t 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.
OSC Constituency Stakeholder Group Global Outreach Program Recommendations Rev 01 nov 2010.doc