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

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

Hi

Is it not the case that all of individual names in the cc list below are also 
subscribed to the listserv, in which case we don't have to list them separately 
and receive two copies of each message?

I don't know what the weekend schedule looks like so am unable to guess whether 
an hour is possible.  If so, great.  Either way let's try here first.

So at this point, we have a rather murky draft FY 13 budget (should we 
acronymize the full name, OPaB? :-) under which the constituencies in CSG and 
NCSG each appear to get varying levels of outreach funding.  Have no idea what 
CPH folks intend to deal with this, maybe someone could explain?

In any event, any concerns that an OTF would have been a bureaucratic 
centralization command and control mechanism (a BCCCM) that'd have precluded 
constituencies from having their own pots of walking around money (Chicago 
term) and approaches to outreach should now be off the table, one would think.  
So we're back to the baseline question of should there be any sort of 
decentralized community coordination mechanism (a DCCM) to promote a) 
transparency and collective accountability in the management and disbursal of 
said funds, b) shared best practices and lessons learned, c) joint initiatives 
as needed, d) a focal point for interfacing with ICANN-wide efforts, and e) an 
external visage that says ICANN as a community is working hard to outreach to 
developing countries?  (I just sat through two weeks of UN Internet governance 
meetings and got the usual earful about how ICANN doesn't give a rats petutie 
(sp?) about the developing world, people from the developing world cannot 
participate in or influence ICANN, etc, and therefore we need new 
intergovernmental oversight mechanisms to tell ICANN what to do etc.)

NCSG still thinks the answer is yes.  If CSG thinks the answer is a flat out 
no, then it's not obvious to me what this group can do, it's a pretty binary 
choice.  If instead the answer is yes in principle but not the OTF as it was 
designed, then the next step should be for folks who didn't like the OTF model 
to propose some other sort of beast that would advance those objectives.

The question of whether to have staff survey outreach efforts or have the 
constituencies or the beast do it is really secondary.  Why don't we start with 
the end state we do or don't want to achieve?

Best

BD




On May 28, 2012, at 10:49 PM, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> It should be a session separate from the council sessions. Meeting at the 
> weekend would mostly be preferable since we're loaded with other sessions 
> during the week (see Bill's mail). However at least four of the group are 
> council members and would also like to follow all GNSO weekend seesions.
> Do we have a 1 hr early morning slot on Saturday or Sunday available not 
> overlapping with others?
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2012 14:57
> An: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 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
> 
> 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.
> 
>