Re: [gnso-osc] FW: Final CCT recommendations

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Having just become the contact for the NCSG in this SC, I am offering  
some belated comments on the doc.   Hope it is not too late.
On 1 Nov 2009, at 21:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> <CCT Recommendations Final 31 Oct.doc>

> 	• Encourage the understanding of opposing perspectives, while  
> maintaining a spirit of cooperation and civility
This refers to the discussion in 2.5.7 as well.

This has become a standard refrain mine, and I mention it all the  
time.  I know that civility is called for in the ICANN ombudsman's  
report and tha tstandards of comportment, and I do think that we  
should act with civility and should teach it by example. But civility  
is basically something we demand of others - we wish to treated with  
civility, we call for civility when we think we have been mistreated.
I think what ICANN needs even more then civility, especially as we  
begin to incorporate more cultures, is tolerance of others.
So I would prefer a comment like: "spirit of cooperation, civility and  
tolerance."
and in 2.5.7 a statement that asks people to be tolerant of others.   
Given his role at the start of ICANN remembering Postel's Law is a  
good thing:  Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you  
receive.
Under the leadership of our ombudsman we have gotten almost militant  
about civility. I fear this is counter productive.
Was a call for tolerance considered?  If it was rejected, why was it  
rejected?
Page 5

> Accordingly, the CCT took care to focus -oin the areas where the  
> GNSO can have the
typo - oin

page 6

> Problem
>
>
>
> Poor ability to solicit meaningful feedback
Is that the whole problem?  Or it that there is a problem with  
soliciting and responding to meaningful feedback meaningfully?  Were  
both aspects considered?
> Problem
>
>
>
> Few formalized channels for GNSO council to communicate with Board
Not only few formalized, but few direct channels - most channels are  
staff mediated, and this has been shown to not work.  Was this problem  
considered?

page 7

> Because the GNSO is not prioritizing its work,
I believe this is a simplistic statement.  Everyone talks about  
prioritizing, yet there are many things that need to be dealt with in  
parallel.  I believe the real problem is possibly not one of setting  
priorities but one of not having yet succeeded in scaling up the  
ability to do work.  One of the main reasons for the restructuring was  
to widen the base of those doing the work, leaving the GNSO council in  
a purely managerial role with staff in a supportive role.    This has  
not been dealt with fully yet.  And communications are a big part of  
widening the base.
Was widening the pool of participants considered as an alternative  
solution?  Where alternative way to scale up the efficiency of the  
volunteer staff considered?

page 8

> The threshold for introduction of an issue into community debate or  
> policy development is sufficiently low that almost anything can be  
> brought to community attention at any time.
Unfortunately if the threshold is raised, you get a tyranny of the  
majority where only the issues that the many agree with will get on  
the table.  This is not a viable alternative.
I believe the solution is not fewer issues, but more outreach  
(communications) to get more workers and methods to help them be more  
efficiant.  Was this alternative considered?  If so, why was it  
rejected?
Page 11
> 	• ICANN staff assigned to GNSO support should prepare a bi-monthly  
> update of GNSO activity against its objectives and present it to the  
> board.
These should be vetted with the council first.  In fact all staff  
communication concerning the GNSO should be vetted in the council  
first.  Was requiring vetting of all communication regarding the  
council to the board considered?  It should be noted that the Board  
approves all communication sent to the council in its name.
> Time Demands/Compression
>
>
>
> There is little the CCT can do to impact this problem except,
Perhaps come up with a plan to communicating the importance of the  
work with the intent of bringing more volunteers into the process.   
Once people how much some of this work relates to their business of  
social goals, they should be ready to give some time.  Was such a plan  
considered?  If rejected, why was it rejected?

thanks for the tought provoking report.

a.