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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

All, may I suggest you work your session into the full GNSO weekend schedule?

I for one, would like to have the full Council attend your deliberations. The 
question of outreach is key, and I am worried that it is slipping under the 
Council's radar. Holding a session in Prague as part of the Council's weekend 
agenda, rather than a separate work session, might help push it back up there.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 28 mai 2012 à 22:49, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> 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.
> 
>