[gnso-osc] RE: Final CCT recommendations

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

Thanks Ken.  So why not say that or something like it in the
recommendations.  As the report stands, it looks like this issue was
just glossed over and it obviously wasn't.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:20 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: 'Robert Hoggarth'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Scott Pinzon'
        Subject: FW: Final CCT recommendations
        
        

        Chuck:

         

        Perhaps I can help a bit with respect to the document management
question you raised.

         

        It became clear to the team, working closely with ICANN I/T
Staff, that substantial improvements to both document management and
collaboration would be impractical to consider in the short-term, which
we labeled Phase I.  The BGC was certainly correct in highlighting those
elements, but the major challenge is that there are not clear technology
solutions that are compatible with our platform.  ICANN I/T is
undertaking various product reviews and internal tests with the
objective of recommending workable solutions down the road.  Once we
have our new Drupal-based platform up and running, we will be positioned
to integrate whatever solutions are recommended.  We reflected these
team decisions in the Bus Requirements Project Summary and also in
Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4. 

         

        To be sure, there are some minor doc management and
collaboration enhancements included in Phase I; however, most will occur
in Phase II.  We think we understand the business requirements for both
of these enhancements (separately documented); but, elected to defer
them to a subsequent phase so as not to overwhelm the most critically
needed website improvements including usability, navigation, search,
content management, and administration.   

         

        Perhaps it would make sense for the OSC (or other standing
committee) to convene a new Work Team to consider these and, perhaps,
other elements once the new GNSO website is in production.

         

        I hope that explanation helps.  I would be pleased to discuss
with you and/or answer any other questions that you may have.

         

        Ken

         

        From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:14 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: Final CCT recommendations

         

        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