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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1
best
olga

On 17/10/2011, at 10:19, "Dykes, Roy" <Roy.Dykes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Julie,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m fine with that approach.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Roy
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-otf-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-otf-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 9:17 AM
> To: Olga Cavalli
> Cc: gnso-otf-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-otf-dt] Re: Revised Outreach Task Force Draft Charter
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Olga,
> 
> I will send a revised redlined document with Chuck’s changes today.   If 
> there are no objections to the revised draft from DT members then I will 
> prepare a motion with the document for submission to the Council tomorrow.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> 
> On 10/15/11 11:00 AM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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 
> <http://cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
> 
> Thanks Julie and the entire team. Please see below.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> 
> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:45 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gnso-otf-dt@xxxxxxxxx <http://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:
> 
> 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.
> 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.
> Deliverables:  Here and elsewhere we included a step for a budget request to 
> be made according to the ICANN budget cycle.
>  
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
> 
> 
>