Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

On May 29, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 
> Thanks Jeff.
> 
> What do others in the group think?

*That irrespective of what this group manages to do in the next three weeks, it 
would be useful to have a Council-level discussion and encourage SGs to all 
come prepared to talk about what they are doing and hope to be doing on 
outreach and whether they think there should be a DCCM of some sort and if so 
what.  

*That one copy of each message sent to the listserv really would be sufficient.

BD
> 
> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>