hi all, i’ve rolled all of this conversation up into a new draft of the slides. there’s one remaining thing to note... Manal noticed that “GNSO” doesn’t appear in on the title of the slide deck and added it. but that title is also the title of our group and “GNSO” doesn’t appear there either. i almost went ahead and changed it in the Charter before i submitted it, but decided to check with the rest of you. does everybody consider this a friendly amendment, as i do? i left Manal’s addition highlighted in red on this version of the deck to remind us to just quickly dispense with that question on our call. thanks, mikey On Mar 16, 2014, at 5:07 AM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Thanks again Mikey .. Responses inline below .. Kind Regards --Manal
From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:54 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: gac-gnso-cgs@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the slide deck -- still plenty oftime for revisions before our next meeting
On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Manal Ismail <manal@tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Many thanks Mikey .. A couple of remarks: - I think slide 6 is supposed to replace slide 5, right? i.e. slide 5 will be deleted, right?
right — i just left it in so you would have something to compare my new one to. [MI]: Thanks .. Looks perfect to me .. you can kindly delete slide 5 on our final version ..
- I believe we should be adding the Wiki url, unless this is going to be the one added to reference the charter
yep. [MI]: Great .. Thanks ..
- Finally, on slide 6, I think the 2nd and 3rd bullets are redundant .. I suggest keeping the 2nd and deleting the 3rd , don’t know what you and other colleagues think .. I think the GNSO and GAC providing feedback, implicitly means they approve the new version reflecting such feedback ..
ah! another difference in the way we work. in my working-group experience the feedback goes back to the working group, they digest it and produce a new draft for approval. that’s why i split the two. i’m learning a lot. :-)
i’m fine either way. [MI]: I'm learning a lot too J .. but you have a point .. although we don't have a similar formal way of approval, we can still propose 2 deadlines one for providing any comments, and in case of any, another for final review after incorporating all the comments .. Does this sound reasonable? We can discuss and finalize on our upcoming conference call ..
by the way, i’ve drafted a motion for the Council to approve the charter in Singapore (i’ve attached it to this note) — our Council deadline for motions is coming up tomorrow and i plan to submit it in time to get on our agenda for Singapore. it’s easier to amend or pull a motion off our agenda than it is to put one on. so if there’s “big change required” feedback, i’ll just pull it. Amr, you want to be the seconder? between the two of us, we can handle any amendments that come up and Jonathan can watch over both of us.
[MI]: Thanks for sharing ..
And finally to answer your question “what’s the goal for having the charter approved by the GAC and the GNSO?” I personally believe that: - It’s important to consult at each milestone, as indicated in our charter - It’s important to make sure both the GAC and the GNSO agree to the problem definition, the described objectives and the expected deliverables - Having everyone agree on each significant step means that they will be ready to adopt our deliverables at the end (some sort of early engagement ;) )
sorry — i worded that question really badly. i was really just looking for a target date for approval of the charter. i think your goals are fantastic, but all i was going for was something to replace my little “??” in the target-date line on the slide.
Not sure what my GAC colleagues think, but I don’t think we will receive the sought feedback/approval from the GAC at the meeting in Singapore, that’s why it was suggested to agree on a deadline ..
yep, that’s where i was trying to go too. sorry about that.
[MI]: Sorry to have misunderstood your question .. I believe there was some suggestion to allow for 2 weeks after Singapore meeting but, I'm sorry, I can't recall whose suggestion it was .. On the call we can agree on proposed dates from our side, one for comments (for example 2 weeks??) and one for review (maybe one more week??) ..
I hope I was able to address your points .. if not please let me know ..
yes — all good here. [MI]: Great ..
thanks,
mikey
Kind Regards --Manal
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:20 PM To: gac-gnso-cgs@icann.org Subject: [Gac-gnso-cg] revised version of the slide deck -- still plenty oftime for revisions before our next meeting
hi all,
here’s a next-version of the slides. the big unanswered question that we probably can take into the meeting in Singapore is “what’s the goal for having the charter approved by the GAC and the GNSO?” we might want to have a proposed answer to that question. on the GNSO side, i bet we could approve it in Singapore. GAC folks? what do you think? too fast?
anyway, here’s the deck. feel free to revise/comment. Manal, i left the slide you added in the deck, followed by my revised version in the black font. see if you like my version.
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)