ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[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 
are solved
- or (as I understand John suggesting) to start with a clearer layout of the 
constituency views

Please let me know your comments/preferences.
I'll return to the list after on Friday a business trip.

Best regards

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.


John Berard
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388

-------- 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
To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 


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 
regards to
allocating the survey
responsibility of the SGs/constituencies and the OTF for outreach planning and 
OTF structure

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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy