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

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

It's Wolf's call but I think it is a separate session for the work group.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 8:57 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; '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
> 
> 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.