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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Some very good points, thanks Avri.

Stéphane

Le 7 nov. 2009 à 21:09, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 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.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature