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

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

Thanks Wolf.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 3:28 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Cc: robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx;
scott.pinzon@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: AW: [gnso-osc] RE: Final CCT recommendations
        
        
        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
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