Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

Hi

On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:22 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All,
>  
> 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

It'd be good to not only solve the budgetary questions but also to get some 
clear and organized information from the board and staff about their current 
outreach discussions, and how anything the GNSO might do would mesh with these.

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

NCSG's views have been pretty clear, we voted for the OTF motion.  But a 
clearer layout of other constituency's views would be interesting, as would any 
concrete proposals of a superior alternative.

Cheers

Bill
>  
> Please let me know your comments/preferences.
> I'll return to the list after on Friday a business trip.
>  
> 
> Best regards 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
> Berard
> 
> John Berard
> Founder
> 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>
> Date: Wed, March 21, 2012 7:51 am
> To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi
> 
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 4:58 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>  
>> 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 possible.
>>  
>> 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 implementation
>> 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.
>