<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach
- To: "William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxx>, gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:07:40 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>I endorse Stephane's suggestion. Putting the matter
of Outreach on the Council's weekend agenda and using it to engage a wider
membership of the SGs (wider than just the Council members) might help us
create a way forward.</div><div><br></div><div>No one is against Outreach -- it
is the lifeblood of the organization. But there are many different ways
it can be conducted and
funded.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>John
Berard</div><div>Founder</div><div>Credible Context</div><div>58 West Portal
Avenue, #291</div><div>San Francisco, CA 94127</div><div>m:
415.845.4388</div><div><br><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach<br>
From: William Drake <<a
href="mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx";>william.drake@xxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Tue, May 29, 2012 7:52 am<br>
To: <a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On May 29, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Thanks Jeff.<br>
> <br>
> What do others in the group think?<br>
<br>
*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. <br>
<br>
*That one copy of each message sent to the listserv really would be
sufficient.<br>
<br>
BD<br>
> <br>
> Stéphane<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Le 29 mai 2012 à 12:58, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :<br>
> <br>
>> Stephane,<br>
>> <br>
>> 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.<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> Sent with Good (<a href="http://www.good.com";>www.good.com</a>)<br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [<a
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 04:20 AM Eastern Standard Time<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; <a
href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx";>william.drake@xxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a>;
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx";>liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO
outreach<br>
>> <br>
>> All, may I suggest you work your session into the full GNSO weekend
schedule?<br>
>> <br>
>> 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.<br>
>> <br>
>> Thanks,<br>
>> <br>
>> Stéphane Van Gelder<br>
>> Directeur Général / General manager<br>
>> INDOM Group NBT France<br>
>> ----------------<br>
>> Head of Domain Operations<br>
>> Group NBT<br>
>> <br>
>> Le 28 mai 2012 à 22:49, <<a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>> a écrit :<br>
>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> Do we have a 1 hr early morning slot on Saturday or Sunday
available not overlapping with others?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Best regards<br>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>>> <br>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----<br>
>>> Von: Neuman, Jeff [<a
href="mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2012 14:57<br>
>>> An: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; 'william.drake@xxxxxx'<br>
>>> Cc: '<a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>'; '<a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a>';
'rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx'; 'liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx'<br>
>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO
outreach<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Thanks.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Sent with Good (<a href="http://www.good.com";>www.good.com</a>)<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: Gomes, Chuck [<a
href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 08:49 AM Eastern Standard Time<br>
>>> To: <a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx";>william.drake@xxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a>;
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx";>liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO
outreach<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Chuck<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>
[<a href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 5:43 PM<br>
>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; <a
href="mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx";>william.drake@xxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a>;
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx";>liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Subject: AW: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO
outreach<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> I think a 30 mins slot has already been reserved for a
face-to-face meeting but it's waiting for confirmation.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> If others agree - or at least don't object - I'll check with the
organizers of the Prague weekend.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Best regards<br>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Von: Gomes, Chuck [<a
href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 27. Mai 2012 15:38<br>
>>> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; <a
href="mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx";>william.drake@xxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a>;
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx";>liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO
outreach<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Thanks Wolf.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Chuck<br>
>>> <br>
>>> From: <a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:07 AM<br>
>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; <a
href="mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx";>william.drake@xxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a>;
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx";>liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Subject: AW: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO
outreach<br>
>>> <br>
>>> All,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> I'd like to move this forward again.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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?<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Best regards<br>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>>> <br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Von: Gomes, Chuck [<a
href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 28. April 2012 21:52<br>
>>> An: William Drake; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a>;
<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Betreff: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work
on GNSO outreach<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Thanks Bill. Please see my responses below.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Chuck<br>
>>> <br>
>>> From: William Drake [<a
href="mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx";>mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx</a>]<br>
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:31 AM<br>
>>> To: <<a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
>>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx</a>;
Gomes, Chuck; <a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work
on GNSO outreach<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Hi<br>
>>> <br>
>>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:22 PM, <<a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>> <<a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> <br>
>>> All,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> As I'd like to prepare some input to the council I'll
try to restart the discussion on this pending issue.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> It seems to me that we have the choice<br>
>>> <br>
>>> - either to keep the item further on hold until the
current budget questions are solved<br>
>>> <br>
>>> [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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> [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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> - or (as I understand John suggesting) to start with
a clearer layout of the constituency views<br>
>>> <br>
>>> [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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> [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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Cheers<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Bill<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Please let me know your comments/preferences.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> I'll return to the list after on Friday a business
trip.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Best regards<br>
>>> Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>>> <br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Von: <a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a> [<a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>]<br>
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. März 2012 19:08<br>
>>> An: William Drake; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich<br>
>>> Cc: <a
href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>; <a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a> <<a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
>>> Betreff: RE: AW: Work on GNSO outreach<br>
>>> <br>
>>> I would be more than happy to lay out -- as
clearly as I can -- the BC view in support of a refreshed drafting team.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Berard<br>
>>> <br>
>>> John Berard<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Founder<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Credible Context<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 58 West Portal Avenue, #291<br>
>>> <br>
>>> San Francisco, CA 94127<br>
>>> <br>
>>> m: 415.845.4388<br>
>>> <br>
>>> -------- Original Message --------<br>
>>> Subject: Re: AW: Work on GNSO
outreach<br>
>>> From: William Drake <<a
href="mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx";>william.drake@xxxxxx</a>><br>
>>> Date: Wed, March 21, 2012 7:51 am<br>
>>> To: <<a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
>>> Cc: <<a
href="mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>, <<a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,<br>
>>> <<a
href="mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx";>rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
>>> <br>
>>> Hi<br>
>>> <br>
>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 4:58 PM, <<a
href="mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx";>KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Hi,<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Alternative options (maybe not
exhausting):<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 1. Re-enter the original OTF
motion and vote<br>
>>> <br>
>>> presumably with the same result<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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<br>
>>> <br>
>>> * allocating the
survey<br>
>>> * responsibility of the
SGs/constituencies and the OTF for outreach planning and implementation<br>
>>> * OTF structure<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|