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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Unless we make some progress on this list in advance, I don't think 30 minutes 
will be enough.  I suggest trying to get at least an hour.  Also, is the 30 
minutes one of the typical GNSO Council sessions with us?  If so, I don't think 
that will work because we would use most of the time updating the Council.

Chuck

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 5:43 PM
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

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<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.