AW: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
- To: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <william.drake@xxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:06:30 +0200
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
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;
Betreff: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
Thanks Bill. Please see my responses below.
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:31 AM
Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck;
Subject: Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:22 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
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
[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
[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.
Please let me know your comments/preferences.
I'll return to the list after on Friday a business trip.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. März 2012 19:08
An: William Drake; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
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):
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
* 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.