FW: Outreach document background
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@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 2:59 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Neuman, Jeff; KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@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-03feb...> 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
Thanks Jeff: I think is a good thing to hear the word of the soul of this WG, with a lot of time working on this. Is also good to know, some things that mention Olga in this email, specially for whom didnt know or didnt remember. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org From: Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us To: council@gnso.icann.org Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:03:42 -0500 Subject: [council] FW: Outreach document background 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@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 2:59 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Neuman, Jeff; KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@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 chairedfor 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 acomprehensive proposal to improve the effectiveness of the GenericNames Supporting Organization (GNSO), including its policy activities,structure, operations and communications. This BGC WG produced acomprehensive set of recommendations: the “Report of the BoardGovernance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on GNSO Improvements”(hereinafter the BGC Report) that were approved by the full Board inJuly 2008.1 As a follow up to Board approval of many BGC Report recommendations,the GNSO Council formed two steering committees, the OperationsSteering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee(PPSC). The OSC formed three work teams, one of which is the OSC ConstituencyOperations Work Team, subsequently called the OSC Constituency andStakeholder Group Operations Work Team (OSC CSG Work Team). The OSC CSG Work Team, chaired by Olga Cavalli with activeparticipation from all constituencies and stakeholder groups, createda Work Plan and broke it down into specific tasks. Task 2 directed the work team to develop recommendations for a globaloutreach program to broaden participation in GNSO constituencies. Thisis where the Outreach document came from, as a mandate for the workingteam. 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 forconsideration of the constituencies and stakeholder groups indifferent stages of the process. Other references: BGC Report : See:<http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb...> 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 incurrent constituencies.--Reach all current members of the ICANN community and potentialmembers, 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
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. Thanks. 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. Thanks, Stéphane Stéphane 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@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 2:59 PM To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Neuman, Jeff; KnobenW@telekom.de> <KnobenW@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-03feb...>
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
HI Stéphane Well, this is getting interesting…convoluted, but interesting…. Since you've waded in a couple times on a personal basis and Olga's not here to reply, let me add my own two cents in the hope that we stimulate some further list discussion in advance of the vote Thursday. All this has happened pretty quickly without a full airing, and it'd be better to act based on full and symmetric information. On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
[snip]
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.
I did not read Olga's message as expecting a rubber stamp, nor do I think her expressing disappointment is disrespectful to the council. It is quite natural that someone who devoted a lot of energy for a couple years to running a WT that'd been mandated as she detailed, that operated in an open manner with representation from all corners of our universe, and that continually refined its text based on our feedback, would be surprised to have it suddenly go down in flames, particularly without any clear explanation of its purported deficiencies. I doubt that other chairs of WGs WTs etc would be any less disappointed if placed in similar circumstances.
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.
Here I'm puzzled. Reworking is precisely what's happened here. There was a motion to charter a body that would perform a set of agreed functions. Many councilors wanted a second deferral and then abstained on the vote because they said people should have more time to think about it. No focused dialogue or alternative text ensured until a motion was submitted on the last day, by which time it was impossible for proponents of the charter to organize an alternative motion. The motion does not charter said body, just pulls out one of its functions and asks staff to do it rather than have a multistakeholder collaborative endeavor per the charter. In what sense is that not a rather substantial "rework"?
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.
SGs can of course revise their views, I don't think she's arguing with that principle. At the same time though, one would like to think that SG reps to a team do have some communication with their peers and if the latter has fundamental problems—e.g. a desire to toss out the entire enterprise—some early warning would be given.
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.
This went on for @ two years, no? The Charter is ten pages. Best, Bill
Bill, Your points are well taken. This is why I was careful in my previous email to explain that my responses were generic in nature, and not focused on this specific issue. On that issue however, I do not read John's motion as the Council wanting to redo the work itself. The motion asks for staff input, and that would then be pushed back to the group. That is my understanding of the Council being within its role to decide that a specific group's work is not ready yet, and needs to be looked at again. And let's not forget this is just a motion at this stage. The Council has not yet voted on whether it agrees with the BC on this, or whether it doesn't. So all in all, I think what is happening here is exactly what should happen. I understand the frustration those in the group may feel, but I do want to make sure that we defend the Council's prerogative to look at work submitted to it and decide it is not quite ready. Whatever the issue. That is all I was saying. Thanks, Stéphane Le 13 déc. 2011 à 15:41, William Drake a écrit :
HI Stéphane
Well, this is getting interesting…convoluted, but interesting….
Since you've waded in a couple times on a personal basis and Olga's not here to reply, let me add my own two cents in the hope that we stimulate some further list discussion in advance of the vote Thursday. All this has happened pretty quickly without a full airing, and it'd be better to act based on full and symmetric information.
On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
[snip]
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.
I did not read Olga's message as expecting a rubber stamp, nor do I think her expressing disappointment is disrespectful to the council. It is quite natural that someone who devoted a lot of energy for a couple years to running a WT that'd been mandated as she detailed, that operated in an open manner with representation from all corners of our universe, and that continually refined its text based on our feedback, would be surprised to have it suddenly go down in flames, particularly without any clear explanation of its purported deficiencies. I doubt that other chairs of WGs WTs etc would be any less disappointed if placed in similar circumstances.
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.
Here I'm puzzled. Reworking is precisely what's happened here. There was a motion to charter a body that would perform a set of agreed functions. Many councilors wanted a second deferral and then abstained on the vote because they said people should have more time to think about it. No focused dialogue or alternative text ensured until a motion was submitted on the last day, by which time it was impossible for proponents of the charter to organize an alternative motion. The motion does not charter said body, just pulls out one of its functions and asks staff to do it rather than have a multistakeholder collaborative endeavor per the charter. In what sense is that not a rather substantial "rework"?
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.
SGs can of course revise their views, I don't think she's arguing with that principle. At the same time though, one would like to think that SG reps to a team do have some communication with their peers and if the latter has fundamental problems—e.g. a desire to toss out the entire enterprise—some early warning would be given.
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.
This went on for @ two years, no? The Charter is ten pages.
Best,
Bill
participants (4)
-
carlos dionisio aguirre -
Neuman, Jeff -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake