<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption September 24
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption September 24
- From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:13:03 -0700
Philip and colleagues,
I endorse much of what Ron says below. I also offer a few general observations
and a couple of specific questions.
First, personally I am skeptical that the best way to broaden participation in
the GNSO is to create a new and permanent standing committee, with all that
implies in terms of start-up efforts and staff support. My experience is that
there are real dangers that such a committee, instead of advancing the
objectives laid out in the first paragraph of section 2.1.1, will instead
disperse human and financial resources, create inefficiencies, and increase
duplication of effort. However, I know that the Work Team members studied this
issue in some depth and I am happy to defer to them if they believe this is the
best approach.
Second, it strikes me that that outreach goals may be quite different with
regard to the stakeholder groups in the two GNSO houses. In the non-contracted
party house, it is apparent that many businesses, intellectual property owners,
ISP and connectivity providers, and non-commercial organizations that are
strongly affected by ICANN decisions do not participate in the organization,
and specifically in the GNSO. I wonder whether this is true in the contracted
party house. Certainly most registries seem already to be active participants
in the registries stakeholder group, and the same is true of the major
registrars, although I acknowledge that probably a number of registrars do not
participate. In any case the outreach challenges seem to be very different
between the two groups. I question whether such activities directed to
registries and registrars is a wise use of ICANN resources. If these entities
cannot already see for themselves the value of participation in the
organization without which they could not even be in business, then I wonder
whether outreach efforts will change that mindset. If, instead, the goal of
outreach efforts is to encourage more companies to seek to become accredited
registrars (for example), again that is qualitatively different from the
challenge on the non-contracted party side. ICANN has no need to encourage
anyone to become a business, non-commercial organization, etc., affected by
ICANN; rather the focus should be on encouraging those such entities that
already exist to become active within GNSO. The goal of outreach efforts among
the contracted parties should be more clearly stated.
Third, I note that the thrust of the BGC WG report (as quoted in section 1.1)
was on what the staff should do to improve outreach. It would be helpful if
the report could be clearer on which activities should be undertaken by staff
and which should rely on volunteers. To give one example, when it is stated
that "the Committee should coordinate the development of robust Workshop
materials," (section 2.2.2.1), who is expected to do the developing of these
materials?
A few specific comments:
Section 2.1.2.1: it is hard to imagine that a person "new to ICANN" could make
an effective contribution to the work of a small outreach committee. Of course
the input of such people should be solicited and taken very seriously.
Same: The presence of committee members from the Registry or Registrar SG
should depend on clarification of the outreach mission with regard to these
groups, as noted above.
Section 2.1.3: Has there been an independent evaluation of the ICANN
Fellowship program that supports the statement "the Fellowship program proved
that investing in young participants and developing young experts is
worthwhile"?
Section 2.1.5: The following sentence under "maximizing use of events" should
be clarified: "the Committee's global outreach strategy should include
efficient use of ICANN events
to ensure that multiple local trade and industry associations, non-governmental
organizations, academic institutions and civil society organizations are
represented at
these events, even if they are not GNSO stakeholders." All the entities
listed are eligible for membership in either the commercial or non-commercial
stakeholder group. Perhaps it would be clearer to state "even if they are not
currently active in GNSO stakeholder groups."
I would certainly welcome any responses from the Work Team members or from
others on the OSC regarding the above points.
Steve Metalitz
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 4:29 AM
To: HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption
September 24
Debbie,
Ron raises some valid questions for clarification here.
Please let us know.
Philip
Chair OSC
________________________________
From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:14 PM
To: 'Philip Sheppard'; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption
September 24
Chair,
I read the CSG Work Team's recommendations with interest and find it on the
whole to be a good work product. I am particularly encouraged by the
considerations given to 'translations' as this is one of the pillars that will
support ICANN as it matures into a truly global institution. Clearly, outreach
is a very important and heretofore underserved component of ICANN and the
initiatives noted in the recommendations are solid steps in the right
direction. A lot of good ideas but, as we all know, the devil is in the
details and thus there is considerable work still ahead of us in this area.
I have a couple of things that I wondered if the OSC might get some
clarification on, as follows:
2.1.2 Membership of the Committee, 2nd paragraph notes: "The Committee
membership should be long enough to allow the participation of host country and
neighboring nations, and to leverage the outreach events and alert as many
relevant parties to effectuate goals and activities." I don't understand this
sentence. Can we get some clarification, as well as the Work Team's thinking
behind the length of Committee member terms, how to manage 'institutional
memory' with members rotating off the committee, and so forth?
2.1.2.1 Representation on the Committee, 4th para notes: "Committee members
should cooperate with the ICANN Fellowship selection team to be able to invite
up to ten key people to each ICANN event, who may include people who represent
numerous groups, such as leaders of academia, business associations, and
non-governmental organizations." Again, I do not understand what the sentence
means, particularly who is being invited where? Some background would
hopefully bring some clarity to the intent.
My comment in regard to the first paragraph in this section (re:
representation) is that with such a small committee, notwithstanding ICANN's
principles of diversity, the committee's first priority (vis-à-vis selection
criteria) should be based on an individual's qualifications in the realm of
outreach rather than their gender or sector of the GNSO community from which
they come. The second priority (which some may argue should be the first) is
geo location for all of the obvious reasons.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
President
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:23 AM
To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-osc] Global Outreach Program Recommendations - for adoption
September 24
Fellow OSC members,
please find attached the final piece of work from the various teams within the
OSC.
It is a recommendation on outreach from the CSG team, chaired by Olga Cavalli,
in an effort led by Debbie Hughes.
Let me have your comments with a view to OSC adoption by September 24.
After which, assuming a positive reception, we will send it to the GNSO Council.
Philip
OSC Chair
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|