Re: [gnso-otf-dt] Comments on the Charter

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Friends,
in preparation for our call later today I read in detail the comments sent
by Chuck, I included some comments from my own to start the exchange of
ideas, those are included in CAPS.
best
Olga


> ------------*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’.
>
> ENGLISH IS MY SECOND LANGUAGE, AND I PERSONALLY DO NOT SEE BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN STRATEGY AND TACTICS SO I WILL KINDLY ASK OUR ENGLISH SPEAKING
MEMBERS TO HELP US WITHT HIS COMMENT.

>
> “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’?
>

SAME COMMENT AS BEFORE.

>
> ·         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.
>
> SAME COMMENTS AS BEFORE, LANGUAGE SHOULD BE REVISED TO REFLECT THE IDEA
WHICH IS BEING EFFECTIVE IN THE USE OF BUDGET

>
> 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.
>

THE IDEA BEHIND THIS IS TO HAVE A SMALL GROUP, THE TASK FORCE WICH IS MORE
DYNAMIC, AND A LARGER STEERING COMMITTEE IN THE ROLE OF AN ADVISOR
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.
>
>
THIS SOUNDS REASONABLE WE CAN ADJUST DATES FOLLOWING THE BUDGETING CYCLE
ICANN STAFF COULD PROVIDE US WITH THIS INFO


> 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.
>

THIS IS OK FOR ME.

>
> Chuck
>