Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach

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

Thanks Jeff.

What do others in the group think?

Stéphane



Le 29 mai 2012 à 12:58, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> Stephane,
> 
> I share a different view from you on this.  The last several full council 
> sessions on this have been open ended and have not resulted in any progress.  
> In fact, they have been disappointing to say the least without reaching any 
> conclusions,  or action items.  Unless there is a motion for the full council 
> to consider and progress made prior to Prague by the smaller team, I do not 
> believe we should add it to the full agenda.  That said, if progress is made, 
> or there is a motion, then we will have to have room to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:         Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 04:20 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To:   KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc:   Neuman, Jeff; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; william.drake@xxxxxx; 
> john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx; 
> rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject:      Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>