[council] FW: Outreach document background

Stéphane Van Gelder stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Tue Dec 13 13:01:27 UTC 2011

Thanks Jeff, a little too quick off the mark there perhaps ;)

For complete transparency, I made some comments in response to Olga's email which I am also posting to the full list.

These comments do not reference the specific issue being discussed here (the OTF) but are meant as a discussion of the more general principles that we as a Council, and the GNSO community in general, might wish to follow.

My comments were sent to Olga as a personal response to a private email that was sent directly to me. They are my own consideration of the larger issues I have just mentioned.


This is what I wrote to Olga:

Thanks Olga, I was going to ask the same question as Jeff.

I would also like to comment on your email. I do not believe that when the Council does not immediately rubber stamp a piece of work done by a group, it is disrespecting the work of that group.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that I believe suggesting this, is disrespecting the Council.

The Council is not a letterbox. It has a responsibility to look at the work produced and say whether it approves it or not.

What the Council must not do is rework the end product itself. But what it should do is look at the work and evaluate it again, even after it has already been evaluated by the group producing it in the first place.

This two-level approval process is built into our PDP to ensure that the work that the GNSO ends up approving is truly representative of community consensus (and I won't go into the different levels of consensus as we define them, as that is not important here).

So I am not comfortable buying into the "the C and SGs were represented on the WG and therefore there should not be disagreement now" argument. First of all, because different people, even from the same constituency, have different opinions. And also because some WG reps may not have the time to adequately look at the work (unfortunate, I know, but a fact of life nonetheless) and that same constituency's Council rep may spot something that went previously unnoticed.

I realize you may wish to respond to my email before I resend your previous message to the Council, so I will not do so immediately. I do feel your message has great value and the Council should be made aware of it, so I would like to resend it soon.




Le 12 déc. 2011 à 22:03, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> All,
> Olga sent the following e-mail to Stephane, myself and Wolf and with her permission I am posting this to the full Council list.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 2:59 PM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de
> Subject: Outreach document background
> Dear Stéphane,
> I hope you are doing well.
> I am contacting you in relation with the Outreach document and other documents related.
> I understand that council didn't approve my motion related with the charter on the last call, also there was a request for deferring it during the open council meeting in Dakar.
> In my modest oppinion this is surprising and disappointing because this outreach document is part of the GNSO restructuring process, that was open to everyone and where all constituencies and stakeholder groups participated.
> For your reference I have included as follows all the background information of the OSC CSG working team I chaired
> for more than two years. Task 2 of this working team was the mandate to develop an outreach strategy:
> The ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC) created a working group
> (the BGC WG) to consider the results of the reviews and recommend a
> comprehensive proposal to improve the effectiveness of the Generic
> Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), including its policy activities,
> structure, operations and communications. This BGC WG produced a
> comprehensive set of recommendations: the “Report of the Board
> Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements”
> (hereinafter the BGC Report) that were approved by the full Board in
> July 2008.1
> As a follow up to Board approval of many BGC Report recommendations,
> the GNSO Council formed two steering committees, the Operations
> Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee
> (PPSC).
> The OSC formed three work teams, one of which is the OSC Constituency
> Operations Work Team, subsequently called the OSC Constituency and
> Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (OSC CSG Work Team).
> The OSC CSG Work Team, chaired by Olga Cavalli with active
> participation from all constituencies and stakeholder groups, created
> a Work Plan and broke it down into specific tasks.
> Task 2 directed the work team to develop recommendations for a global
> outreach program to broaden participation in GNSO constituencies. This
> is where the Outreach document came from, as a mandate for the working
> team.
> See the produced report here:
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/global-outreach-recommendations-21jan11-en.pdf
> Draft versions of this document went for public comments and also for
> consideration of the constituencies and stakeholder groups in
> different stages of the process.
> Other references:
> BGC Report : See:
> <http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf>
> OSC CSG Work Team wiki workspace:
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoosc/Constituency+Operations+Team>
> OSC CSG Task 2:
> Task 2: Develop a global outreach program to broaden participation in
> current constituencies.
> --Reach all current members of the ICANN community and potential
> members, particularly non-English speakers
> --Develop global outreach programs aimed at increasing participation
> Members of the OSC CSG Working team:
> Work Team Members:
> • Olga Cavalli - Nominating Committee Appointee
> • Rafik Dammak - Non-Commercial Users Constituency
> • Claudio DiGangi - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
> • Chuck Gomes - gTLD Registries Constituency
> • Tony Harris - Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
> • Zahid Jamil - Commercial and Business Users Constituency
> • S.S. Kshatriya - Individual (India)
> • Victoria McEvedy - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
> • Hector Ariel Manoff - Intellectual Property Interests Constituency
> • Krista Papac - Registrar Constituency
> • Dr. Shahram Soboutipour - Individual (Iran)
> • Michael Young - gTLD Registries Constituency
> As you can see in the members and conformation of the working group, constituencies and stakeholder groups were part of the team.
> And after all we went through these procedural steps during two years of work, which had the support and participation of all SGs, now some stakeholder groups want to change the motion.
> This undermines the value of the work that during two years the OSC CSG working team did and also undermines the value and purpose of all the GNSO restructuring process.
> In my modest oppinion GNSO as council should respect the work done under the GNSO restructuring process, specially considering that all steps were supervised by the OSC, in the case of our CSG working team, and by the council as a whole.
> Please if you need any other clarification on this regard feel free to let me know.
> Many thanks and best regards.
> Olga

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20111213/ead5f589/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list