RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All of our discussions to date have gone around in circles.  Would love a 
concrete proposal (or proposals) to be presented.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: owner-gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:08 AM
To: William Drake; gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] Work on GNSO outreach

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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, May 29, 2012 7:52 am
To: gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>; 
>> john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx>; 
>> rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; 
>> liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'; 
>>> 'gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>
>>> Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx>;
>>>  rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
>>> [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 5:43 PM
>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>
>>> Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx>;
>>>  rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>
>>> Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx>;
>>>  rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
>>> [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:07 AM
>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; william.drake@xxxxxx<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>
>>> Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx>;
>>>  rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx>;
>>>  rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>>> Cc: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-outreachdiscussion@xxxxxxxxx>;
>>>  Gomes, Chuck; rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-outreachdiscussion] AW: AW: Work on GNSO outreach
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:22 PM, 
>>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>> 
>>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
>>> [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. März 2012 19:08
>>> An: William Drake; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
>>> Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>>> rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:william.drake@xxxxxx>>
>>> Date: Wed, March 21, 2012 7:51 am
>>> To: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>>
>>> Cc: <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
>>> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
>>> <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2012, at 4:58 PM, 
>>> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>