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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Please advise whether you Re asking for a separate session with the work group 
or with the Council?  We have very limited time and space over the weekend.

Thanks.



Sent with Good (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Monday, May 28, 2012 08:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxx
Cc:     john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx; 
rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach

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> 
<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 
<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>
                                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):

                                1.      Re-enter the original OTF motion and 
vote

                                presumably with the same result

                                2.      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.

                                        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.