revised version of the slide deck -- still plenty of time 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.)
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? - I believe we should be adding the Wiki url, unless this is going to be the one added to reference the charter - 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 .. 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 ;) ) 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 .. I hope I was able to address your points .. if not please let me know .. 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
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.
- I believe we should be adding the Wiki url, unless this is going to be the one added to reference the charter
yep.
- 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. 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.
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.
I hope I was able to address your points .. if not please let me know ..
yes — all good here. 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.)
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.)
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.)
Thanks Mikey for noting this .. I do support and appreciate your friendly amendment .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:45 PM 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 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
Many thanks Mikey for the bedrock of this work. Also Manal for the careful critique and input. I have given it a "once over" and made a few minor suggested tweaks. Each is identified by a comment as my change tracking feature appeared to not work. Tweaked version is attached. Thinking ahead to our meeting on Sunday: 1. Manal & I need to circle back with Heather and possibly others on what the scope / agenda of the meeting is. i.e. is it confined to the work of this group. 2. In any case, thinking about only the work of this group, slides 1-10 are excellent on a stand-alone basis to describe the work of this group. Slide 10 ends with a series of discussion points / questions and that seems sensible. The presentation will naturally pause there. 3. I think I understand that slide 11 is then an the example of our early thinking and then slide 12 contains examples of current work that could be subject to process in slide 11. Correct? Thanks again for the excellent work on this. Jonathan From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: 16 March 2014 14:29 To: Mike O'Connor 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 Thanks Mikey for noting this .. I do support and appreciate your friendly amendment .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:45 PM 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 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
hi Jonathan, astounding! i had no idea there was a way to put comments on a Powerpoint slide. you’ve just rocked my world. interestingly, all your comments show up with my name across the top. a glitch. i’m fine with your suggestions. i’ve built on your version by slightly simplifying the graphic (just like with editing text, “less is better”) in a way that i’m hoping will improve comprehension. it’s easy to roll back to the old versions if people don’t like these new ones. i’ve attached that version. right Jonathan, the last two slides are examples of one of the ideas we’re thinking about on the Early Engagement track. i would note that the second of those two slides is actual “content” that i would be loath to give up if the schedule gets compressed. that’s a summary of “The Queue” — our hope with this slide is to give GAC members an actual alert that there are some PDPs that they may have a strong interest in. and many of them are in the early stages — so they represent opportunities for early engagement in real life. i’d cheerfully give up the second to the last slide, but would at least like to flash that last one in front of people. thanks! mikey On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:41 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
Many thanks Mikey for the bedrock of this work. Also Manal for the careful critique and input.
I have given it a “once over” and made a few minor suggested tweaks. Each is identified by a comment as my change tracking feature appeared to not work. Tweaked version is attached.
Thinking ahead to our meeting on Sunday:
1. Manal & I need to circle back with Heather and possibly others on what the scope / agenda of the meeting is. i.e. is it confined to the work of this group. 2. In any case, thinking about only the work of this group, slides 1-10 are excellent on a stand-alone basis to describe the work of this group. Slide 10 ends with a series of discussion points / questions and that seems sensible. The presentation will naturally pause there. 3. I think I understand that slide 11 is then an the example of our early thinking and then slide 12 contains examples of current work that could be subject to process in slide 11. Correct?
Thanks again for the excellent work on this.
Jonathan
From: gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-gnso-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Manal Ismail Sent: 16 March 2014 14:29 To: Mike O'Connor 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
Thanks Mikey for noting this .. I do support and appreciate your friendly amendment .. Kind Regards --Manal
From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 2:45 PM 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
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
<GAC-GNSO - Singapore v2 (JR Edit).pptx>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Thanks Mikey, FWIW, the comments are very similar to Word i.e. I think as part of the "Review" tab. It does seem to have full redline / mark up capability but I couldn't get to use that properly for now. As to the substance, I wasn't suggesting removing slides 11 & 12 at this stage rather being completely clear on their purpose and how we fit in communicating that content. Jonathan From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: 17 March 2014 12:49 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Manal Ismail; 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 hi Jonathan, astounding! i had no idea there was a way to put comments on a Powerpoint slide. you've just rocked my world. interestingly, all your comments show up with my name across the top. a glitch. i'm fine with your suggestions. i've built on your version by slightly simplifying the graphic (just like with editing text, "less is better") in a way that i'm hoping will improve comprehension. it's easy to roll back to the old versions if people don't like these new ones. i've attached that version. right Jonathan, the last two slides are examples of one of the ideas we're thinking about on the Early Engagement track. i would note that the second of those two slides is actual "content" that i would be loath to give up if the schedule gets compressed. that's a summary of "The Queue" - our hope with this slide is to give GAC members an actual alert that there are some PDPs that they may have a strong interest in. and many of them are in the early stages - so they represent opportunities for early engagement in real life. i'd cheerfully give up the second to the last slide, but would at least like to flash that last one in front of people. thanks! mikey
hi Jonathan, i just spent a few minutes trying out the “Review” tab in Powerpoint — i’m not sure there’s a redline function the way Word has it. what i *did* find was that if i compared two versions of the draft (and made the new window that pops up a lot bigger) that i could put the two versions side by side on my screen and “accept” or “reject” changes. i’ll try that new toy on the draft that we agree on tomorrow. i love new toys. yep, your understanding of the last two slides is just right. i was thinking that the GAC/GNSO agenda might get put under some time pressure what with the flurry of activity around the NTIA announcement. i’m just lobbying for showing people that very last slide if we have to throw a lot of the other ones out in order to make time in the schedule. mikey On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com> wrote:
Thanks Mikey,
FWIW, the comments are very similar to Word i.e. I think as part of the “Review” tab. It does seem to have full redline / mark up capability but I couldn’t get to use that properly for now.
As to the substance, I wasn’t suggesting removing slides 11 & 12 at this stage rather being completely clear on their purpose and how we fit in communicating that content.
Jonathan
From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: 17 March 2014 12:49 To: Jonathan Robinson Cc: Manal Ismail; 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
hi Jonathan,
astounding! i had no idea there was a way to put comments on a Powerpoint slide. you’ve just rocked my world. interestingly, all your comments show up with my name across the top. a glitch.
i’m fine with your suggestions. i’ve built on your version by slightly simplifying the graphic (just like with editing text, “less is better”) in a way that i’m hoping will improve comprehension. it’s easy to roll back to the old versions if people don’t like these new ones. i’ve attached that version.
right Jonathan, the last two slides are examples of one of the ideas we’re thinking about on the Early Engagement track. i would note that the second of those two slides is actual “content” that i would be loath to give up if the schedule gets compressed. that’s a summary of “The Queue” — our hope with this slide is to give GAC members an actual alert that there are some PDPs that they may have a strong interest in. and many of them are in the early stages — so they represent opportunities for early engagement in real life. i’d cheerfully give up the second to the last slide, but would at least like to flash that last one in front of people.
thanks!
mikey
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hey Mikey, Yeah, I’ll second the motion. Deadline for submission is today. Thanks. Amr On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:54 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
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.
- I believe we should be adding the Wiki url, unless this is going to be the one added to reference the charter
yep.
- 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.
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.
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.
I hope I was able to address your points .. if not please let me know ..
yes — all good here.
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.)
<Motion for GAC-GNSO CG Charter Approval v1.doc>
_______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
thanks Amr! i wrote you in and submitted it just now. hey! well before the deadline. ;-) m On Mar 16, 2014, at 5:51 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hey Mikey,
Yeah, I’ll second the motion. Deadline for submission is today.
Thanks.
Amr
On Mar 15, 2014, at 11:54 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
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.
- I believe we should be adding the Wiki url, unless this is going to be the one added to reference the charter
yep.
- 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.
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.
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.
I hope I was able to address your points .. if not please let me know ..
yes — all good here.
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.)
<Motion for GAC-GNSO CG Charter Approval v1.doc>
_______________________________________________ Gac-gnso-cg mailing list Gac-gnso-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac-gnso-cg
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
participants (4)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Jonathan Robinson -
Manal Ismail -
Mike O'Connor