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

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

Thank you very much Avri for your very thoughtful review of the CCT
support and you constructive questions and suggestions.

And thanks to all in the OSC who have contributed to this discussion.
We are at a point where we need to develop a response to the CCT report.
Is there a volunteer who would be willing to summarize the comments and
questions OSC members have raised or should I ask a staff member to do
that?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:10 PM
> To: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Mason Cole
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc] FW: Final CCT recommendations
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Having just become the contact for the NCSG in this SC, I am 
> offering  
> some belated comments on the doc.   Hope it is not too late.
> 
> On 1 Nov 2009, at 21:29, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > <CCT Recommendations Final 31 Oct.doc>
> 
> 
> >     * Encourage the understanding of opposing perspectives, while 
> > maintaining a spirit of cooperation and civility
> 
> This refers to the discussion in 2.5.7 as well.
> 
> This has become a standard refrain mine, and I mention it all 
> the time.  I know that civility is called for in the ICANN 
> ombudsman's report and tha tstandards of comportment, and I 
> do think that we should act with civility and should teach it 
> by example. But civility is basically something we demand of 
> others - we wish to treated with civility, we call for 
> civility when we think we have been mistreated.
> 
> I think what ICANN needs even more then civility, especially 
> as we begin to incorporate more cultures, is tolerance of others.
> 
> So I would prefer a comment like: "spirit of cooperation, 
> civility and tolerance."
> 
> and in 2.5.7 a statement that asks people to be tolerant of others.   
> Given his role at the start of ICANN remembering Postel's Law 
> is a good thing:  Be conservative in what you send and 
> liberal in what you receive.
> 
> Under the leadership of our ombudsman we have gotten almost 
> militant about civility. I fear this is counter productive.
> 
> Was a call for tolerance considered?  If it was rejected, why 
> was it rejected?
> 
> Page 5
> 
> > Accordingly, the CCT took care to focus -oin the areas 
> where the GNSO 
> > can have the
> 
> typo - oin
> 
> page 6
> 
> > Problem
> >
> >
> >
> > Poor ability to solicit meaningful feedback
> 
> Is that the whole problem?  Or it that there is a problem 
> with soliciting and responding to meaningful feedback 
> meaningfully?  Were both aspects considered?
> 
> > Problem
> >
> >
> >
> > Few formalized channels for GNSO council to communicate with Board
> >
> 
> Not only few formalized, but few direct channels - most 
> channels are staff mediated, and this has been shown to not 
> work.  Was this problem considered?
> 
> 
> page 7
> 
> > Because the GNSO is not prioritizing its work,
> 
> I believe this is a simplistic statement.  Everyone talks 
> about prioritizing, yet there are many things that need to be 
> dealt with in parallel.  I believe the real problem is 
> possibly not one of setting priorities but one of not having 
> yet succeeded in scaling up the ability to do work.  One of 
> the main reasons for the restructuring was to widen the base 
> of those doing the work, leaving the GNSO council in  
> a purely managerial role with staff in a supportive role.    
> This has  
> not been dealt with fully yet.  And communications are a big 
> part of widening the base.
> 
> Was widening the pool of participants considered as an 
> alternative solution?  Where alternative way to scale up the 
> efficiency of the volunteer staff considered?
> 
> 
> page 8
> 
> > The threshold for introduction of an issue into community debate or 
> > policy development is sufficiently low that almost anything can be 
> > brought to community attention at any time.
> 
> Unfortunately if the threshold is raised, you get a tyranny 
> of the majority where only the issues that the many agree 
> with will get on the table.  This is not a viable alternative.
> 
> I believe the solution is not fewer issues, but more outreach
> (communications) to get more workers and methods to help them 
> be more efficiant.  Was this alternative considered?  If so, 
> why was it rejected?
> 
> Page 11
> >     * ICANN staff assigned to GNSO support should prepare a 
> bi-monthly 
> > update of GNSO activity against its objectives and present 
> it to the 
> > board.
> 
> These should be vetted with the council first.  In fact all 
> staff communication concerning the GNSO should be vetted in 
> the council first.  Was requiring vetting of all 
> communication regarding the council to the board considered?  
> It should be noted that the Board approves all communication 
> sent to the council in its name.
> 
> > Time Demands/Compression
> >
> >
> >
> > There is little the CCT can do to impact this problem except,
> 
> Perhaps come up with a plan to communicating the importance of the  
> work with the intent of bringing more volunteers into the process.   
> Once people how much some of this work relates to their 
> business of social goals, they should be ready to give some 
> time.  Was such a plan considered?  If rejected, why was it rejected?
> 
> 
> thanks for the tought provoking report.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
>