[gnso-otf-dt] Comments on the Charter
Dear DT members, The only comments I have seen are those (below) that Roy forwarded from Chuck Gomes. If anyone else has seen other comments please let me know and I will compile them for our meeting this Friday, 13 October at 1300 UTC. I have attached the Charter for your reference. Thank you very much and I look forward to talking to you on Friday. Best regards, Julie ------------Comments from Chuck Gomes:------------------ Thanks Roy. Here is my feedback. First of all, let me compliment the group for the comprehensive of the draft charter. “Purpose: The purpose of the OTF is to produce an analysis of the current GNSO outreach activities and to produce an executable GNSO Global Outreach Strategy to address gaps in outreach.” · I think it would be good if the OTF not only proposed ‘Strategy’ but also ‘Tactics’; otherwise, another group will need to be formed to develop possible tactics for implementation of the strategies. This would also apply to other areas of the charter that refers to ‘Strategy’. “Scope: The OTF’s operational plans and activities should further a valid, cost saving and useful purpose aimed at (1) consolidating human and financial resources relating to GNSO outreach; (2) creating efficiency; and (3) and producing an executable Global Outreach Strategy to coordinate the GNSO outreach efforts to avoid duplication of effort.” • If I understand this correctly, I think the intent is good, but the beginning seems awkwardly worded. What does it mean to “further a valid, cost saving and useful purpose”? To use ‘further’ as a verb as was done implies that there is already an outreach purpose? Is the purpose that is the focus or a plan that should be ‘furthered’? · Also, I can understand that ‘cost-effective’ tactics are very important, but it is hard for me to imagine how additional outreach can be cost saving; I think it will involve added costs, but if it is to happen, tactics will need to be cost-effective or they may never happen. Section III – Membership Criteria: A steering committee makes sense if there are lots of members of the task force, but I would not assume there will be. If there are small numbers of volunteers, i.e., under 10, a steering committee may not add much value; in that case, the chair and vice chair could likely serve as the leadership group for the task force. I personally think that it may be difficult to get task force volunteers from every group listed let alone for the steering committee. Timeframes: The dates listed should be designed to fit with ICANN’s budgeting cycle. For example, if the objective is to kick-off the outreach effort in Feb/Mar 2013, funds would need to be allocated in the FY13 budget; that would mean that the amount of funds needed would need to be provided as input to the FY13 budget process in early Spring 2012. I suggest that this task be added to the deliverables. Roles, Functions & Duties: I personally think that a steering committee of 12 is too large to be effective, and, as noted above, it may be difficult to get more than 12 volunteers for the entire task force. I suggest considering designing the steering committee with more flexible criteria so as to be able to use it or not and staff it or not according to the eventual task force size.o T Status Reporting: The agendas of Council meetings are typically very full and the TF may not always have updates that warrant being on the agenda. The Council has a project status mechanism that can be used for updates for each meeting and the TF can request time on the Council agenda when needed. I think it would be helpful to make it clear than the TF does not need to provide its update as part of a Council meeting. That may not have been the intent of the charter drafting group, but it would be good to clarify so expectations are clear. Chuck Attachment:
Outreach Task Force Draft Charter 09 September 2011 for GNSO Review.pdf
|