[gnso-osc] RE: OSC Response to CCT Final Report

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

We hope they are helpful Mason.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:58 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: OSC Response to CCT Final Report
        
        

        Many thanks, Chuck.  The CCT appreciates the thorough review of
our recommendations and the OSC's thoughtful input.

         

        Mason

         

        
________________________________


        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:59 AM
        To: Mason Cole; Mason Cole
        Cc: gnso-osc@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: OSC Response to CCT Final Report

         

        Mason,

         

        Attached and copied below is the OSC response to the CCT Final
Report.  Please forward this to the full CCT membership.  If you or the
team has any questions, please feel free to ask.

         

        Thanks again for the team's excellent work.

         

        Chuck Gomes

         

         

        To:  Mason Cole, Chair of the Communications and Coordination
Team (CCT)

         

        From:  Operations Steering Committee (OSC) 

         

        Date:  7 December 2009

         

        Subject:  OSC Response to the CCT Final Report

         

        Firstly and most importantly, the OSC wishes to thank the CCT
for its report and compliment those participating members who have
clearly produced a constructive work product resulting in many helpful
recommendations.  

         

        While the OSC acknowledges the value of the report, there are a
few specific areas where the committee believes that the report could be
improved and strengthened so that its recommendations are actionable to
the largest extent possible.  

        1)      The OSC recommends that the CCT's Final Report be
separated into two sections:  (1) Technology Improvements (e.g. website)
and (2) All Other Communications and Coordination Improvements.  It
appears that the Technology sections are nearly completed and that
report could be forwarded to the OSC as soon as practicable.  

        2)      It would be helpful if the Executive Summary (in both
documents) provided a clearer guide regarding what to expect in the
report.  For example, immediately following the high-level
recommendations, perhaps include a reference to Section 3 where more
detail is provided.  

        3)      The OSC's understanding is that the CCT was tasked with
developing proposals for implementing various recommendations from the
Board related to Communications and Coordination.  In places, the
document appears to be more of a review of GNSO communications rather
than an implementation plan.  Certain of the specific recommendations
are worded as implementation tasks while others lack the specificity to
give enough direction to serve as implementation guides.  Two examples
of the latter condition follow: 

        a)      Example 1:  3.2 Document Management

        Recommendation:  "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."

        Comment:  With the exception of the suggestion of "a repository
of good templates," this recommendation provides little help in terms
guiding Staff on how to improve document management.  Perhaps the team
could consider recommending that Staff do some work in this area, e.g.
research document management tools.  While the Work Team was not tasked
with defining detailed requirements for document management systems; the
OSC thinks that it could provide some criteria for effective document
management tools, rules, and processes -- as was done for the website
recommendations.  

        b)      Example 2:  Cross SO/AC Communications (See 2.1 The Task
of the CCT)

        Recommendation:  None provided.  

        Comment:  This area does not appear to have been addressed by
the team.  There is quite a bit discussion about GNSO/Board
communication and coordination (e.g. Section 3.6), but almost nothing
about SO/AC communications and coordination.  The OSC thinks this is an
area that needs more attention and believes that the BGC specifically
intended such a focus.  One suggestion to consider is that the Working
Group model may be one mechanism to improve communications in this area.

        4)      Certain OSC members have offered a few additional
comments (see below) that are respectfully submitted as ideas or
suggestions for additional CCT consideration.  

        a)      Executive Summary Recommendations (last bullet point)
and 2.5.7 Degradation in Civility 

        Recommendation:  "Encourage the understanding of opposing
perspectives, while maintaining a spirit of cooperation and civility" 

        Comment:  Several OSC members had differing thoughts and
opinions about this recommendation; however, the OSC was unable to reach
consensus on a single position.  For additional information, the CCT is
encouraged to consult the OSC email archive at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-osc/index.html between the dates of 1
November through 7 December 2009.

        b)      2.3.4 Board-GNSO Communications

        Problem:  Few formalized channels for GNSO Council to
communicate with Board

        Comment:  In addition to few formalized channels, would the team
also discuss how direct those channels should be, e.g. the extent to
which they are mediated by Staff?  

        c)      2.4.3 Feedback Solicitation

        Problem:  Poor ability to solicit meaningful feedback

        Comment:  In addition to the mechanisms/tools for soliciting and
responding to feedback, the team is asked to consider the quality of the
feedback itself, that is, how to make it more useful and meaningful?   

        d)      2.5.1 Time Demands/Compression and 2.5.8 The
Prioritization Issue...

        Problem:  "Because the GNSO is not prioritizing its work...";
and, "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."

        Comment:  The team is asked to consider the idea that, in
addition to limiting the number of issues and/or not establishing
priorities, another factor may be not having succeeded in scaling up the
GNSO's ability to process more work.  One of the principal goals of
restructuring was to broaden the involvement of those doing the work,
leaving the GNSO Council in a largely managerial role with Staff
available to support.  Since communication seems like a viable way to
widen the base, would the team consider ideas as to how the participant
pool could be increased?  In addition, are there potentially ways to
scale up the efficiency of the volunteer community?  

        e)      3.6 Board-GNSO Communications

        Recommendation:  ICANN Staff assigned to GNSO support should
prepare a bi-monthly update of GNSO activity against its objectives and
present it to the board." 

        Comment:  Would the team consider that such Staff reports should
be vetted with the Council first?   

         

        The CCT's report acknowledges that the team spent at least half
of its time on its technology-based recommendations (see 3.1 GNSO
Website).  Obviously, that time was well spent because the committee
believes that the work there will benefit the GNSO in a multiplicity of
ways going forward as evidenced by the excellent presentations given
prior to and during the Seoul meeting.  

        The OSC wishes to make clear that it is not suggesting that the
CCT spend huge amounts of time on the other recommendations as they did
with the website.  On the other hand, allocating some additional
attention to the lesser developed recommendations would be helpful from
an implementation point of view.  Certain of the recommendations may
require more work than others.  Two areas that may not require a lot of
time include:  3.4 Languages and 3.5 Feedback Solicitation.  Others that
could be expanded include:  3.3 Collaboration Tools and 3.2 Document
Management.  The committee notes that recommendations under 3.6
Board-GNSO Communications appear to be general communications principles
that would apply across the community and not just to GNSO/Board
communications.  

         

        The OSC wants to ensure that the CCT does not misinterpret these
requests as involving the creation of detailed implementation plans with
timeline and costs.  Those matters should properly belong to the ICANN
Staff.  

         

        The OSC would appreciate receiving target dates for completion
of the CCT's Technology and non-Technology recommendations.  The
preference would be to discuss the latter report no later than the GNSO
Council meeting in Nairobi.

         

         

        Sincerely, 

         

        Chuck Gomes, Chair

        Operations Steering Committee