RE: [council] GNSO Website

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I remember those days.  Those were also the days the constituencies had to pay 
membership dues to be part of the DNSO.  Some things are worth 
remembering...others not so much :)



Sent with Good (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From:   "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Monday, May 28, 2012 04:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     William Drake; GNSO Council List
Subject:        AW: AW: [council] GNSO Website


I support all points, raise by Bill. Here is another proposal: What about a 
section "History of the GNSO"? Only a small number of people recalls the DNSO 
(from 1999) - which included both ccTLD and gTLD constituencies and the reasons 
why the DNSO was split and how the new (now existing) structure emerged. Just 
one example: How many remember the fight for an INDO (Individual Domain Name 
Holder Constituency) by Joop Teernstra? Worth to remember?
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 10:17
An: GNSO Council List
Betreff: Re: AW: [council] GNSO Website


On May 28, 2012, at 8:59 AM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


        Even your picture looks so fresh, Stéphane...
         


I find it kind of scary, but then as a small child I was afraid of 
clowns...[kidding] 

The site is of course an improvement, many thanks. At the same time, one could 
argue some further tweaks might be merited.  Just off the top of my head over 
morning coffee, a few thoughts for consideration:

1.  Looking at the descriptions of the SGs and constituencies, one can't help 
note that there significant asymmetries in style and substance.  Some don't 
really tell the visitor much about about what the group in question actually 
does or what its driving priorities are.  Perhaps it'd make sense to have those 
groups do their own texts within some defined patterns for conformity?  

2.  I also wonder why only two of four have behavioral standards listed: for 
Rgy these are: "The behavioral expectations of all RySG members, Interest 
Groups and participants include adhering to ICANN Bylaws and Policies; 
supporting the consensus model; treating others with dignity, respect, 
courtesy, and civility; listening attentively to understand others; acting with 
honesty, sincerity, and integrity; and maintaining community good standing."

NGSC is apparently singularly in need enough to require an enumerated list: 

The NCSG is committed to the following:

* Nondiscriminatory and impartial application of rules.

* Transparency

* Service standards for elected officers.

* Standards of member behavior.

* Equality of participation.

* Encourage Consensus.

No similar language for Rgr or CSG.

As the same standards should be applicable to all groups, why not list these 
once at http://gnso.icann.org/about/stakeholder-groups.htm

and focus the remaining texts on descriptions provided by the groups themselves?

3.  While the other three SGs follow a pictorial template of ExCom, Councilors, 
NGSG's is an odd mishmash that intermingles the two in a single column, 
apparently to additionally show internal details like committee assignments.  
Not clear that's necessary and we couldn't be organized like the others.

4.  NCUC's page is out of date, as Konstantinos has stepped down as chair since 
he took a job with ISOC.  Our Interim Chair is now David Cake.  And the correct 
URL to point to is www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>  

5.  The how to participate page http://gnso.icann.org/about/participation.htm 
could start off by being clearer about joining a constituency/SG as logical and 
preferred starting point, with links to how.  The link on how to form a new one 
could be grouped with that.  The only mention of the GA is as a listserv at 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/index.htm.  Perhaps understandable given 
the prevalence of troll content etc, but it does exist and one can't help 
wondering whether it should be left in its current state.

6.  Would it be useful to have dedicated spaces on the home page for total 
newbies that lead to a step by step walk through of GNSO, how it fits in ICANN, 
how PDPs work, "so you're attending your first ICANN meeting," etc?  Similarly, 
and further to the diffuse outreach discussions going on in various places, 
perhaps something similar related to people for developing countries who want 
to know more and might want to participant could be useful...

Just a few cents,

Cheers

Bill