AW: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
All, I'd like to move this forward again. First it seems to me that Chuck was right not expecting too much detailed result coming from the budget allocation for SG/constituency outreach efforts. Nevertheless it would be interesting to know to what extend the SG/const. input is been taken into consideration. Liz, can this information be provided by staff in general? Second - and this is a question to staff, too: can you give us an update on the various outreach discussions/intentions on different ICANN levels if any (e.g. board, staff, ICANN academy...) that we could get a more comprehensive picture? Third we should come up with a clearer layout of the views of our respected SG/const. I'll do that by next week where we'll have an ISPCP call discussing about. John and others would you be prepared similarily? I was asked whether our group needs time to meet face-to-face during the GNSO session in Prague. I wonder whether this makes sense unless we have a suggestion which could be discussed by the council. Please let me know your thoughts about. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Gesendet: Samstag, 28. April 2012 21:52 An: William Drake; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx; rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx Betreff: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach Thanks Bill. Please see my responses below. Chuck From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:31 AM To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach Hi On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:22 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 [Gomes, Chuck] Waiting for current budget questions to be solved doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The draft budget is scheduled to be published on 1 May and hopefully we will be able to identify how much is allocated for this effort but we cannot necessarily assume it will be clear because it depends on the level of detail provided. Of course we can and should ask for the amount budgeted if it is not clear. Even if we know the budgeted amount, I am not sure that that will help us lot in the task before us. Whether the amount is big or small or somewhere in between, we will still have to decide what to implement and when, so it doesn't appear that that knowledge will change our task. If anyone thinks I am wrong on this, please let me know how you think having budget information will help. 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. [Gomes, Chuck] What information would we expect to get from the board and staff, especially the board? Does the board have outreach plans? If they do, I am not aware of them. As they do in most cases, I would expect them to flow the outreach responsibility to the SOs and ACs, although I suppose they could direct their regional teams to do more outreach. - or (as I understand John suggesting) to start with a clearer layout of the constituency views [Gomes, Chuck] This seems okay to me and a good place to start would be with the groups that each of us in this group represent. 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. [Gomes, Chuck] I support getting a clearer layout of the views of our respective groups and then once we have reasonable understanding of those, exploring possible tweaks to the outreach plan that hopefully remains consistent with the WT recommendations as much as possible while still addressing new concerns. 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> [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. März 2012 19:08 An: William Drake; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>> Date: Wed, March 21, 2012 7:51 am To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> Cc: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>> Hi On Mar 20, 2012, at 4:58 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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): 1. Re-enter the original OTF motion and vote presumably with the same result 1. 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. 1. 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.