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

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck:
 
after having gone through the recommendations I fully agree with your
observations, in particular to No. 2. I think

*       

        the work done so far with regard to website renewal is very
fruitful, and the presentations in Seoul have shown improvements
*       

        the other recommendations reflect a more extended and detailed
wishlist to be implemented than the BGC recs

 
But I'm also of the opinion that we couldn't expect more from a diverse
work team. Why?
For the implementation, even for outlining an implementation plan with
timelines and cost estimates you really need a driving force. This must
be the ICANN communications manager (Kieren or his successor and team)
after having been mandated by the council (maybe board). Those guys can
easily handle the budgeting aspects as well which we have to cope with.
 
What could/should be done? My suggestion is that

*       

        the CCT shall restructure the recommendations according to your
observation No. 1 in order to make it better understandable
*       

        the OSC shall discuss and forward the recommendations to the
council with a strong recommendation towards ICANN staff to come up with
a draft implementation covering timelines and estimated costs


I'm not fully sure whether it works this way and therefore looking
forward for further discussion.



Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

  _____  

Von: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. November 2009 03:10
An: Ken Bour; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Julie Hedlund; Scott Pinzon
Betreff: [gnso-osc] RE: Final CCT recommendations


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
<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/gnso-review-report-sep06.pdf>
School of Economics
(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