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

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

I have not seen any response to my request for a volunteer to summarize
the OSC comments.  If no one volunteers and there is not objection in
the next 24 hours, I am hereby asking Ken to do it.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 9:05 AM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Mason Cole
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc] FW: Final CCT recommendations
> 
> 
> 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>