ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>" <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: AW: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
  • From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 09:00:35 +0200

sounds good, challenge will be fitting it in.  can we please somehow try Sat or 
Sun, after that it's nuts


On May 27, 2012, at 11:42 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think a 30 mins slot has already been reserved for a face-to-face meeting 
> but it's waiting for confirmation.
> If others agree - or at least don't object - I'll check with the organizers 
> of the Prague weekend.
> Best regards 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Mai 2012 15:38
> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; william.drake@xxxxxx
> Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx; 
> rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> Betreff: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
> Thanks Wolf.
> The RySG has been supportive of the recommendations for outreach that were 
> approved, but I am sure that there are places where they can be improved.  I 
> still believe that we should try to reach a compromise between the positions 
> primarily being advocated by Bill and John.  But we made little progress on 
> that via our list, so I think it is worth a shot scheduling a face-to-face in 
> Prague if we can find a time that works for the key players.
> Chuck
> From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:07 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@xxxxxx
> Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx; 
> rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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> <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] 
> 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.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy