ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <william.drake@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: AW: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
  • From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:48:44 +0200

Thanks altogether,

as Bill mentioned there is a lot of outreach related activity going on in 
different ICANN "zones".

The discussion group has not yet a fixed mandate rather than to come up with 
compromise options based on the COT outreach report. The whole picture is not 
clear (board and staff activity, ICANN academy, SG/constituency budget 

I've therefore suggested to the council leadership to update the GNSO council 
as a whole at the next meeting. With council's OK the group could then discuss 
on a broader basis.

Best regards

Von: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. April 2012 17:29
An: William Drake; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 
Betreff: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach


Thanks, Bill, for reinvigorating the discussion.

A "clearer layout of the constituency views" would be good, but not just on the 
prior motion.  The BC remains opposed to that, but we support getting a clearer 
picture of what outreach is being done now, at the constituency and 
organizational levels, so as to fine-tune the motion.


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

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, April 26, 2012 7:30 am
To: "<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>" 
Cc: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 


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


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.



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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
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