RE: [gnso-osc] FW: Final CCT recommendations

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here are my comments regarding the CCT Recommendations Report.  I would
very much appreciate it if OSC members would honestly critique my
comments.  Our task as I see it is to either forward the CCT
recommendations on to the Council for action or to send the report back
to the CCT for some more work.
 
First of all, the report demonstrates that the CCT WT did a lot of very
constructive work that resulted in some very helpful recommendations and
they should be complimented for that.  But my first reaction is that
their report may need a little more work to maximize their efforts.  In
that regard, here are some of my personal observations:

1.      
        It would be helpful if the Executive Summary provided a clearer
guide regarding what to expect in the report.  For example, it would be
good if, after the high level recommendations, there was a reference to
Section 3 where more detail is provided with regard to the
recommendations.
2.      
        My understanding is that the CCT was tasked with developing a
proposed implementation plan for implementing Communications and
Coordination related recommendations from the Board.  The overall
document comes across more as another review of GNSO communications than
an implementation plan.  I think a lot of the work has been done to turn
the report into implementation recommendations, but I don't think it is
there yet.  With regard to specific recommendations: some of them are
already very much worded like implementation tasks; others lack the
specificity to give enough direction to serve as implementation guides.
3.      
        One area that seems to be totally lacking in any specific sense
is that of cross SO/AC communications.  There is quite a bit discussion
about GNSO/Board communication and coordination but almost nothing about
SO/AC communications and coordination.  I think this is an area that
needs more attention and I believe that the BGC specifically intended
such a focus.

Following are two examples of specific recommendations that I think
illustrate some of what I tried to say in observation 2 above.
 
Example 1
 
" 2.4.1 GNSO Web site 

. . . 

 

Recommendation

 

Develop new GNSO web site requirements:

 

*       Collaboration Tools
*       Portal services
*       Search capabilities
*       Content management
*       Business processes
*       Shared services
*       Languages other than English (Patrick Sharry p9 BC comments,
Summary of Board Actions p8, p12 3ii, 3iv. BCG/WG p. 42/43)
*       Usability including review of Statistics (London School of
Economics
<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/gnso-review-report-sep06.pdf> 
        (LSE) p12, Rec7, para 3.8 3.10, Summary of Board Actions p12
3iii)
*       Search engine optimization and content inventory
*       GNSO low external visibility. Non-technology recommendations
        (LSE Rec 11, LSE p48 para 3.2, 3.5, 3.9. p56 3.17)
*       Ability for Stakeholders to find out what is going on
        (LSE p48 3.1, LSE Rec10)"

This recommendation is very useful as an implementation guide and even
more so when complemented by 'APPENDIX D: BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS - GNSO
REPLACEMENT WEBSITE'.
 
Example 2
 
"3.2 Document Management
 
Due to the variety of computer platforms and operating systems and
application programs and versions in the ICANN community, any single
document management system would be very difficult to introduce. This is
an area for further study by a specialist. 

In the meantime a repository of good templates would be helpful. The
GNSO should also adopt practical guidelines for draft document
versioning and FTP storing."
 
With the exception of the suggestion of  'a repository of good
templates', this recommendation provides very little in terms guiding
Staff in terms of how to improve document management.  I think it is
okay to recommend that Staff do some work in this area, i.e., research
document management tools, but if that is what is recommended that
should be stated.  In my opinion, the WT was not tasked with doing the
nitty gritty work in terms of defining requirements for document
management systems but, if the goal is to provide implementation
guidelines, then providing some criteria for effective document
management tools and processes would be helpful, as was done above for
the web site recommendations.
 
The CCT report acknowledges that they spent at least half of their time
on the web site and that time was extremely well spent because I believe
that the work they did there will benefit the GNSO in unending ways
going forward.  And I am sure that the WT members were anxiously and
justifiably trying to bring there work to a conclusion.  Also, I want to
make clear that I am not at all suggesting that they spend huge amounts
of time on the other recommendations as they did with the web site.  I
think the time was well spent there but I also think that by spending a
little more time on the other recommendations, they can be much more
helpful from an implementation point of view.
 
Some of the recommendations probably require more work than others.  A
couple that I think may not require a lot of time are these: "3.4
Languages; 3.5 Feedback Solicitation". I believe it may take a little
more time for "3.3 Collaboration Tools" and as already noted above "3.2
Document Management".
 
Regarding what appears to be under "3.6 Board-GNSO Communications"
appears to be recommendations regarding general communications
principles that would apply across the board and not just to GNSO/Board
communications.  
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:30 PM
        To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-osc] FW: Final CCT recommendations
        
        
        Here are the recommendations of the OSC Communications &
Coordination WT (CCT) for OSC review.  Please review and comment on
these on the OSC list.  The next step would be to either forward the
recommendations on for full Council review with any minor edits we have
or to send the recommendations back to the CCT for more work.  If anyone
thinks we need a teleconference call to deal with this, please let me
know.  Otherwise we will try to deal with this on the list. 
         
        Chuck

________________________________

        From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:53 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: gnso-osc-ccc@xxxxxxxxx; julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx; Robert
Hoggarth; Ken Bour
        Subject: Final CCT recommendations
        
        

        Chuck -

         

        On behalf of the CCT, I'm attaching the team's final
recommendations for improvement of communications and coordination
within the GNSO, between the GNSO and the board, and between the GNSO
and the rest of the community.  I hope the OSC finds these
recommendations useful.

         

        The team is available to you for questions and updates as
necessary.

         

        Let me in particular express our thanks to the staff that was
extremely helpful as we went about our tasks.  Julie, Rob and Ken were
always available with their support, helpful suggestions, information
and professional capability.  They regularly made others at ICANN
available to us for consultation as we considered our task.  We're
grateful to have had them as part of our team.

         

        Please contact me with any questions.

         

        Best regards,

         

        Mason Cole

        CCT Chair