RE: [gnso-metrep-wg] Mikey's hack-job on the charter

[Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mikey & Drafting Team,

Thanks for taking the first pass at redlining.  I have just a few 
comments/questions to pose to the group, which I outlined below.  I'm happy to 
redline these into the document as well, but didn't want too many versions 
circulating.  Mikey, if it would be helpful for me to add in the document, 
please let me know I have ownership of the document and will do so and return 
back to the group for other comments.

Comments/Questions:


1.       In the Background section where it discusses creating processes - 
should we also include the term methodology?  As we talked in our call last 
week, it occurred to me we are really trying to give the working group a scope 
of identifying methodologies.  For example, six sigma, is one methodology for 
measuring processes.  I'm not suggesting six sigma by any means, but just as a 
reference.  The working group could research and discuss various methodologies 
and processes that could be used to address the concerns raised in uniformity 
of reporting.

2.      In the Purpose section where it states the working group is encouraged 
to consider the following list of goals - I'm wondering if this is too much to 
consider.  There's a lot there in terms of bullet points and think we want to 
narrow this down for them so they can be more focused in their work.

3.      Assumptions - should we create a clear set of assumptions they should 
follow?  I do a lot of process work and this is always a first step so that we 
give everyone a framework of assumptions on which to focus the analysis and 
process development work.


I will be on the call this week, but may be just a few minutes late and, 
unfortunately, have to jump off a few minutes early, but can elaborate on these 
points during our call.   Let me know what is most helpful.  Thanks and look 
forward to continuing our work.

Have a great week!

Jen



jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB
Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
managing partner, wolfe, sadler, breen, morasch & colby, an intellectual 
property law firm, named top u.s. trademark law firm by corp intl 2013
IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011,  2012 & 2013
513.746.2801
Follow Me: [Description: Description: Description: Description: 
cid:image001.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jenwolfe>  
[Description: Description: Description: Description: 
cid:image002.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <http://pinterest.com/wolfedomain/>  
[Description: Description: Description: Description: 
cid:image003.png@01CDC0CD.AB7D59C0] <https://twitter.com/jenwolfe>
Follow My Blog<http://www.jenwolfe.com/blog>
Domain Names 
Rewired<http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Names-Rewired-Strategies-Protection/dp/1118312627>


From: owner-gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2013 4:37 PM
To: <gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-metrep-wg] Mikey's hack-job on the charter

hi all,

sorry this took so long - it was a little more complicated to write than i 
thought it was going to be when i started.

i've attached my (pretty heavy) revisions to the charter.  there are lots of 
things in there, but they can be described in a simple way.  i've pulled us 
back a bit from the "pure metrics" approach that we had been taking on the 
calls and grounded this charter a little more firmly in the original 
recommendation by the RAPWG that created this initiative.  there's still room 
to do the "design metrics into the process" type stuff we were talking about, 
but i've raised the visibility of the *other* stuff that the RAPWG was looking 
for and muted the metrics stuff a bit.

see what you think.  i've saved this as a black-line draft, but change-tracking 
is there if you want to be overwhelmed.

mikey