Update: GAC-ccNSO session improvement efforts
Hi Everyone, A brief update on the efforts to improve the GAC-ccNSO exchanges. I will report on the progress at the next call, but in the meantime Id be interested in your thoughts and suggestions. Regards, Peter Background: At the council session in Buenos Aires, PVR was tasked to look into means for improving the quality of the GAC-ccNSO sessions during ICANN meetings. Previous attempts to improve the satisfaction scores on the ccNSO meeting surveys had proven unsuccessful. After discussing with Heather Dryden and Byron Holland in Buenos Aires, a call was set up with volunteers from the GAC (Elise Lindeberg, Thomas Schneider, Olga Cavalli (not on call but briefed later)) and CENTR (Wim Degezelle, Peter Van Roste) to identify the issues and come up with solutions. This call took place on February 12, 2014 and the notes can be found below. Notes: Current status
From the ccNSO:
The GAC-ccNSO sessions receive rather low ratings in the ccNSO meeting surveys. Most people in the ccNSO do not see much added value in the meetings as they are one way exchanges of information that ccNSO attendants are already familiar with.
From the GAC:
The exchanges are too formal and do not reflect the excellent relation GAC members have with their ccTLD counterparts. GAC and ccNSO should have a lot of topics to discuss, but people seem to shy away from controversy. Reading slides aloud should be avoided at all cost. Key issue is the lack of time for GAC members. Lack of time to prepare by reading documents, lack of time during the ICANN meeting so open agendas would drive people to their laptops. Other constituencies are much more demanding and clear in what they expect from the GAC. Having bilateral discussions is not efficient as those cannot be included in the GAC communiqué. ccNSO needs to be much more precise/clear in what they ask. We think this, what do you think, what are you going to tell/ask the board? ccNSO / ROs could help the GAC by sharing expertise on specific (controversial) topics. E.g. How do ccTLDs policies solve issues with domain names that are religious names, names or words referring to financial institutions, libel, blasphemy, Conclusion and next steps There is demand for improvement on both sides. The following 5 recommendations should be implemented and the effect they have on the quality of the meeting should be evaluated after the Singapore meeting by both groups. 1. Appoint someone in both the GAC and ccNSO who will then jointly prepare the meeting 2. ccNSO should send written material beforehand: 1 pager containing the topics that needs to be discussed with background info when relevant. Minimize material. Be brief and to the point. 3. Both the ccNSO and the GAC should list what is expected from the other group 4. Public discussions are necessary otherwise they cannot be part of the GAC communiqué. Other groups understand this better. 5. In Singapore there needs to be a short session to explain this plan and ask for cooperation and involvement. PVR and Thomas Schneider will report to their respective groups and reconnect to move things forward. cid:image001.jpg@01CCF0BC.D352D240 Peter Van Roste General Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 <http://www.centr.org> www.centr.org twitter: centrnews
Hi Peter, Thanks for the report and I think that the suggestions are helpful. Recommendation 1 has reminded me that we already have a ccNSO GAC meeting team for the ccNSO in place – it was the GAC that were resistant to actually putting up GAC people to join it. IIRC, Martin Boyle was a member. The Secretariat will be able to advise of the other members. I suggest that it would make sense to re-activate that group and also to ask you to join it. Kind regards, Lesley Lesley Cowley, OBE CEO Nominet Minerva House Edmund Halley Road Oxford Science Park Oxford, OX4 4DQ UK Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 http://www.nominet.org.uk/ Twitter: @lesleycowley From: Peter Van Roste <peter@centr.org<mailto:peter@centr.org>> Date: Wednesday, 12 February 2014 15:45 To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] Update: GAC-ccNSO session improvement efforts Hi Everyone, A brief update on the efforts to improve the GAC-ccNSO exchanges. I will report on the progress at the next call, but in the meantime I’d be interested in your thoughts and suggestions. Regards, Peter Background: At the council session in Buenos Aires, PVR was tasked to look into means for improving the quality of the GAC-ccNSO sessions during ICANN meetings. Previous attempts to improve the satisfaction scores on the ccNSO meeting surveys had proven unsuccessful. After discussing with Heather Dryden and Byron Holland in Buenos Aires, a call was set up with volunteers from the GAC (Elise Lindeberg, Thomas Schneider, Olga Cavalli (not on call but briefed later)) and CENTR (Wim Degezelle, Peter Van Roste) to identify the issues and come up with solutions. This call took place on February 12, 2014 and the notes can be found below. Notes: Current status
From the ccNSO: The GAC-ccNSO sessions receive rather low ratings in the ccNSO meeting surveys. Most people in the ccNSO do not see much added value in the meetings as they are one way exchanges of information that ccNSO attendants are already familiar with. From the GAC: The exchanges are too formal and do not reflect the excellent relation GAC members have with their ccTLD counterparts. GAC and ccNSO should have a lot of topics to discuss, but people seem to shy away from controversy. Reading slides aloud should be avoided at all cost. Key issue is the lack of time for GAC members. Lack of time to prepare by reading documents, lack of time during the ICANN meeting so open agendas would drive people to their laptops. Other constituencies are much more demanding and clear in what they expect from the GAC. Having bilateral discussions is not efficient as those cannot be included in the GAC communiqué. ccNSO needs to be much more precise/clear in what they ask. “We think this, what do you think, what are you going to tell/ask the board?” ccNSO / ROs could help the GAC by sharing expertise on specific (controversial) topics. E.g. How do ccTLDs policies solve issues with domain names that are religious names, names or words referring to financial institutions, libel, blasphemy, …
Conclusion and next steps There is demand for improvement on both sides. The following 5 recommendations should be implemented and the effect they have on the quality of the meeting should be evaluated after the Singapore meeting by both groups. 1. Appoint someone in both the GAC and ccNSO who will then jointly prepare the meeting 2. ccNSO should send written material beforehand: 1 pager containing the topics that needs to be discussed with background info when relevant. Minimize material. Be brief and to the point. 3. Both the ccNSO and the GAC should list what is expected from the other group 4. Public discussions are necessary otherwise they cannot be part of the GAC communiqué. Other groups understand this better. 5. In Singapore there needs to be a short session to explain this plan and ask for cooperation and involvement. PVR and Thomas Schneider will report to their respective groups and reconnect to move things forward. [cid:image001.jpg@01CCF0BC.D352D240] Peter Van Roste General Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org>– twitter: centrnews
Hi Peter, Sounds good and thanks for the effort. If I make one suggestion: add a recommendation no. 6: if we have nothing useful to exchange (which does not at all necessarily means that something is wrong) at a particular time, we do not meet. I think we occasionally make the mistake of feeling obliged to come up with things to discuss, because we are planned to meet. Let's make sure we feel obliged to meet because we have useful things to discuss. Cheers, Roelof From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Van Roste Sent: woensdag 12 februari 2014 16:45 To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Update: GAC-ccNSO session improvement efforts Hi Everyone, A brief update on the efforts to improve the GAC-ccNSO exchanges. I will report on the progress at the next call, but in the meantime I'd be interested in your thoughts and suggestions. Regards, Peter Background: At the council session in Buenos Aires, PVR was tasked to look into means for improving the quality of the GAC-ccNSO sessions during ICANN meetings. Previous attempts to improve the satisfaction scores on the ccNSO meeting surveys had proven unsuccessful. After discussing with Heather Dryden and Byron Holland in Buenos Aires, a call was set up with volunteers from the GAC (Elise Lindeberg, Thomas Schneider, Olga Cavalli (not on call but briefed later)) and CENTR (Wim Degezelle, Peter Van Roste) to identify the issues and come up with solutions. This call took place on February 12, 2014 and the notes can be found below. Notes: Current status
From the ccNSO: The GAC-ccNSO sessions receive rather low ratings in the ccNSO meeting surveys. Most people in the ccNSO do not see much added value in the meetings as they are one way exchanges of information that ccNSO attendants are already familiar with. From the GAC: The exchanges are too formal and do not reflect the excellent relation GAC members have with their ccTLD counterparts. GAC and ccNSO should have a lot of topics to discuss, but people seem to shy away from controversy. Reading slides aloud should be avoided at all cost. Key issue is the lack of time for GAC members. Lack of time to prepare by reading documents, lack of time during the ICANN meeting so open agendas would drive people to their laptops. Other constituencies are much more demanding and clear in what they expect from the GAC. Having bilateral discussions is not efficient as those cannot be included in the GAC communiqué. ccNSO needs to be much more precise/clear in what they ask. "We think this, what do you think, what are you going to tell/ask the board?" ccNSO / ROs could help the GAC by sharing expertise on specific (controversial) topics. E.g. How do ccTLDs policies solve issues with domain names that are religious names, names or words referring to financial institutions, libel, blasphemy, ...
Conclusion and next steps There is demand for improvement on both sides. The following 5 recommendations should be implemented and the effect they have on the quality of the meeting should be evaluated after the Singapore meeting by both groups. 1. Appoint someone in both the GAC and ccNSO who will then jointly prepare the meeting 2. ccNSO should send written material beforehand: 1 pager containing the topics that needs to be discussed with background info when relevant. Minimize material. Be brief and to the point. 3. Both the ccNSO and the GAC should list what is expected from the other group 4. Public discussions are necessary otherwise they cannot be part of the GAC communiqué. Other groups understand this better. 5. In Singapore there needs to be a short session to explain this plan and ask for cooperation and involvement. PVR and Thomas Schneider will report to their respective groups and reconnect to move things forward. [cid:image001.jpg@01CCF0BC.D352D240] Peter Van Roste General Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org> - twitter: centrnews
Thanks Roelof and Lesley for your feedback. Ill report back to the GAC reps and well have a short presentation in Singapore to get support for the process and input. Next thing we need to do is to get some (I would suggest we start with three) volunteers for the liaison team. Gabi and Bart, is this something that needs to go through a formal round of nominations and council approval or can we just move forward and formalize after we did a test-run at Singapore? Regards, Peter From: Roelof Meijer [mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl] Sent: maandag 24 februari 2014 17:38 To: Peter Van Roste; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Update: GAC-ccNSO session improvement efforts Hi Peter, Sounds good and thanks for the effort. If I make one suggestion: add a recommendation no. 6: if we have nothing useful to exchange (which does not at all necessarily means that something is wrong) at a particular time, we do not meet. I think we occasionally make the mistake of feeling obliged to come up with things to discuss, because we are planned to meet. Lets make sure we feel obliged to meet because we have useful things to discuss. Cheers, Roelof From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Peter Van Roste Sent: woensdag 12 februari 2014 16:45 To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Update: GAC-ccNSO session improvement efforts Hi Everyone, A brief update on the efforts to improve the GAC-ccNSO exchanges. I will report on the progress at the next call, but in the meantime Id be interested in your thoughts and suggestions. Regards, Peter Background: At the council session in Buenos Aires, PVR was tasked to look into means for improving the quality of the GAC-ccNSO sessions during ICANN meetings. Previous attempts to improve the satisfaction scores on the ccNSO meeting surveys had proven unsuccessful. After discussing with Heather Dryden and Byron Holland in Buenos Aires, a call was set up with volunteers from the GAC (Elise Lindeberg, Thomas Schneider, Olga Cavalli (not on call but briefed later)) and CENTR (Wim Degezelle, Peter Van Roste) to identify the issues and come up with solutions. This call took place on February 12, 2014 and the notes can be found below. Notes: Current status
From the ccNSO:
The GAC-ccNSO sessions receive rather low ratings in the ccNSO meeting surveys. Most people in the ccNSO do not see much added value in the meetings as they are one way exchanges of information that ccNSO attendants are already familiar with.
From the GAC:
The exchanges are too formal and do not reflect the excellent relation GAC members have with their ccTLD counterparts. GAC and ccNSO should have a lot of topics to discuss, but people seem to shy away from controversy. Reading slides aloud should be avoided at all cost. Key issue is the lack of time for GAC members. Lack of time to prepare by reading documents, lack of time during the ICANN meeting so open agendas would drive people to their laptops. Other constituencies are much more demanding and clear in what they expect from the GAC. Having bilateral discussions is not efficient as those cannot be included in the GAC communiqué. ccNSO needs to be much more precise/clear in what they ask. We think this, what do you think, what are you going to tell/ask the board? ccNSO / ROs could help the GAC by sharing expertise on specific (controversial) topics. E.g. How do ccTLDs policies solve issues with domain names that are religious names, names or words referring to financial institutions, libel, blasphemy, Conclusion and next steps There is demand for improvement on both sides. The following 5 recommendations should be implemented and the effect they have on the quality of the meeting should be evaluated after the Singapore meeting by both groups. 1. Appoint someone in both the GAC and ccNSO who will then jointly prepare the meeting 2. ccNSO should send written material beforehand: 1 pager containing the topics that needs to be discussed with background info when relevant. Minimize material. Be brief and to the point. 3. Both the ccNSO and the GAC should list what is expected from the other group 4. Public discussions are necessary otherwise they cannot be part of the GAC communiqué. Other groups understand this better. 5. In Singapore there needs to be a short session to explain this plan and ask for cooperation and involvement. PVR and Thomas Schneider will report to their respective groups and reconnect to move things forward. cid:image001.jpg@01CCF0BC.D352D240 Peter Van Roste General Manager CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 5550 - fax +32 2 627 5559 <http://www.centr.org> www.centr.org twitter: centrnews
participants (3)
-
Lesley Cowley -
Peter Van Roste -
Roelof Meijer