[gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
- To: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <william.drake@xxxxxx>, <gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:22:41 +0200
after an official mailing list was opened some time ago I didn't see any new
incoming member to the arena. So we seem to be the same group as before - small
but power- and thoughtful.
As I'd like to prepare some input to the council I'll try to restart the
discussion on this pending issue.
It seems to me that we have the choice
- either to keep the item further on hold until the current budget questions
- or (as I understand John suggesting) to start with a clearer layout of the
Please let me know your comments/preferences.
I'll return to the list after on Friday a business trip.
Von: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. März 2012 19:08
An: William Drake; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
I would be more than happy to lay out -- as clearly as I can -- the BC view in
support of a refreshed drafting team.
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, March 21, 2012 7:51 am
On Mar 20, 2012, at 4:58 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
just back from Costa Rica, I was thinking how to get us a bit more streamlined
in one direction. Clearly, the team wasn't given a "mandate" by the council
with a strong guideline where to go. We should just sort out the options we may
have in the current situation und present them to the council in a transparent
way. The option preferred could become the compromise solution. Any outcome
Alternative options (maybe not exhausting):
Re-enter the original OTF motion and vote
presumably with the same result
Request the - still existing - OTF charter drafting team (maybe enriched by
additional volunteers) to revise the charter by giving clear guidelines with
allocating the survey
responsibility of the SGs/constituencies and the OTF for outreach planning and
Per previous, what would make the most sense to me is that CSG and any other
parties that had problems with the OTF report spell them out and offer
solutions in clear and unambiguous language. A refreshed DT could then look at
these and see if they can be incorporated without gutting foundational
principles like coordination and sharing of information, best practices, etc.
If so, we could then proceed to another vote effort. If not, not, in which
case we kick the can down the road to 3.
Put the decision on hold until the FY13 budget allocation re the various
outreach activities requirements is done. Derived from that the assignment of
responsibilities may become more clear.