Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach

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

Thanks John and Bill.

Wolf, is putting this on our weekend agenda still a possibility?

Stéphane



Le 29 mai 2012 à 17:07, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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.
> 
> No one is against Outreach -- it is the lifeblood of the organization.  But 
> there are many different ways it can be conducted and funded.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John Berard
> Founder
> Credible Context
> 58 West Portal Avenue, #291
> San Francisco, CA 94127
> m: 415.845.4388
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach
> From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, May 29, 2012 7:52 am
> To: gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> 
>