Re: [gnso-otf-dt] Re: Revised Outreach Task Force Draft Charter

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julie,
which is your suggestion on how to proceed?
I am really very interested in doing the motion on Tuesday, we have been
working on this document for almost a year so far.
looking forward for your comments.
Best
Olga

2011/10/14 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>

>  Dear Chuck,
>
> Thank you for your quick response and again very helpful comments.   If the
> DT members have any questions or concerns I will relay them.  Otherwise you
> can assume we will make the changes you suggest.  We will forward a final
> version for your reference.
>
> Have a nice weekend!
>
> Julie
>
>
> On 10/14/11 7:25 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks Julie and the entire team. Please see below.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> *From:* Julie Hedlund 
> [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]
>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 14, 2011 4:45 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* gnso-otf-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Revised Outreach Task Force Draft Charter
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> On behalf of Olga Cavalli and the Outreach Task Force Drafting Team
> (OTF-DT), I want to thank you for your thoughtful and extremely helpful
> comments on the OTF Draft Charter.  Attached is a redlined document
> incorporating the changes we made to address your comments.  Here also is a
> brief description of what we did in each case:
>
>    1. General Comment:  The OTF-DT members agreed with your suggestion
>    concerning the need to include tactics but thought that the words
>    “Implementation Plan” more clearly captured the intent.  A global change 
> was
>    made to include “Implementation Plan” with each occurrence of the word
>    “Strategy.” *[Gomes, Chuck] * Excellent change.
>    2. Scope:  We tried to make the language more clear and to emphasize
>    the need for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. *[Gomes, Chuck] * I
>    think you covered this pretty well.
>    3. Deliverables:  Here and elsewhere we included a step for a budget
>    request to be made according to the ICANN budget cycle.
>    4. Membership Criteria and Roles, Functions, Duties: We tried to state
>    more clearly the size and composition of the OTF at the start of the 
> section
>    and we decided to make the Steering Committee contingent on the size of the
>    OTF/number of volunteers. *[Gomes, Chuck] *I like the way you changed
>    the steering committee but I have one more caution: you shouldn’t be
>    surprised if you cannot get a volunteer from every constituency or
>    stakeholder group.  It is a good goal to do that but I think it would be
>    wise to word the goal in a way that allows for the eventuality that one or
>    more constituencies or stakeholder groups may not be represented.  How 
> about
>    something like this: “. . . small Steering Committee that would include
>    the Chair, Vice Chair, and at least one representative from each 
> Stakeholder
>    Group or at least two representatives from each House.”  Note that this
>    might result in a steering committee as small as six but it could still be
>    larger if there were enough volunteers.  Note that changes in this regard
>    would affect wording in several other places in your document.
>    5. Status Report:   We adjusted this to add flexibility by removing the
>    requirement for reporting at each Council meeting. *[Gomes, Chuck] * I
>    like what you did here.
>    6. Additional Change:  We realized that we needed to reflect that the
>    Council will appoint the Chair and Vice Chair, so we included this step.  
> In
>    addition, since there initially would not be a Steering Committee, we
>    assigned the recruitment role to the Chair, Vice Chair, and support staff.
>     This should be reflected throughout the document.*[Gomes, Chuck] *This 
> seems fine to me but I do want to comment on the following: “
>    *Objective 1:* The GNSO Council shall approve the Charter and appoint
>    the OTF Chair, who also is the GNSO Council Liaison, and the Vice Chair.”
>     It appears to me that this requires the OTF Chair to be a Councilor; are
>    you sure you want to do that? I believe that Council liaisons are normally
>    Councilors.  Assuming that is true, what happens if you cannot find a
>    Councilor who will be OTF Chair?  If I was you, I would consider deleting
>    “who also is the GNSO Council Liaison”.   Qualified chairs are hard enough
>    to find without be too restrictive.  On the other hand, if it is okay for
>    the liaison to be a non-Councilor, your language may be okay, but if that 
> is
>    the case I suggest you make that clear.  Note that this issue occurs again
>    in Deliverable # 1, in the steering committee discussion, under Formation
>    and in Roles, Functions & Duties.
>
> *[Gomes, Chuck] Your goal is that “*the size does not hinder the ability
> of the OTF to complete its work in a timely fashion.*”  I personally have
> a hard time understanding how a group of up to 45 could complete its work in
> a timely fashion.  First of all, it is hard enough to scheduled meetings or
> coordinate activities with 10 people, let alone 45.  I think you will need a
> carefully designed plan to ensure timely progress and simultaneously heard
> 45 people but maybe you already have ideas to make that happen.  On a
> somewhat related note, you require a minimum of 35 OTF members (at least 7
> per region); what happens if you cannot achieve that requirement.  At a
> minimum, if you are convinced that it would be helpful and workable to have
> that many, I think you should at least allow some flexibility for fewer
> members to cover the possibility that you cannot get that many volunteers.
> Maybe something like this: “The OTC shall be composed of a minimum of two
> members from each geographical region and may contain up to (whatever
> maximum # you think best).”
> Minor edit:  There are at least a two places where the term “public form”
> should be changed to “public forum”.
> *
>
> Our goal is to provide the revised Charter to the Council for consideration
> at its meeting on 26 October in Dakar.  Since yours are the only comments we
> have received, if you could address our revisions by COB Monday the 17th, we
> would like to try to revise the document and submit it to the Council in
> time for the document deadline on Tuesday, 18 October.  We hope that this
> will give you enough time to review the document, if not please let us know.
>
> Thank you again for your comments.  We do think that they have aided us in
> improving the document.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund
> Policy Director — on behalf of the members of the OTF-DT
>
>
>