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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi Jen,

great stuff.  and really good that you can join us on the call -- will you be 
stationary for the first half or the second half of the call?  i'd like to 
structure the conversation so that you won't have to be driving during the time 
that we're focusing on your contribution.  :-)

thanks,

mikey


On Dec 10, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mikey - I attached my redlines to this email per the below string.  I added a 
> few assumptions that I thought might be helpful.  I will be on my cell during 
> the call tomorrow and only have access to Adobe Connect for about 30 minutes 
> (sorry it’s right during my commute time to school for my son and getting to 
> the office), but I’ll be on the call and look forward to discussing.
>  
> We had a snow day here in Cincinnati, too, with the second wave of the storm 
> – hopefully this is the last of it for a while!  Safe travels to everyone!
>  
> 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: <image007.png> <image008.png> <image009.png>
> Follow My Blog
> Domain Names Rewired
>  
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 9:24 PM
> To: Jen Wolfe
> Cc: <gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-metrep-wg] Mikey's hack-job on the charter
>  
> hi Jen,
>  
> sorry about the sluggish reply.  today's a travel day and bad driving weather 
> to boot.
>  
> by all means redline these thoughts into the draft.  i think your comments 
> would be a great addition.  i'm happy to try to juggle multiple red-line 
> versions if others want to do the same.  
>  
> some reactions to your points
>  
> 1) yep, i think working the idea of methodology into this draft would be 
> fine.  i was trying to balance that "methods" part of the work with the 
> "improve the process to submit problem reports and the data analysis of those 
> reports" goal of the RAPWG and i may have gone a little too far away from the 
> methods part.  
>  
> 2) the "goals" section is largely a lift from the RAPWG work and, while it's 
> a good list, it wouldn't hurt at all to sharpen it up a little bit.
>  
> 3) i'd love to see that assumptions section you're describing.  i deleted the 
> assumptions section that was there because i didn't think it added much to 
> the draft (sorry Berry), but i'm quite interested in seeing what you're 
> thinking about.
>  
> thanks
>  
> mikey
>  
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Jen Wolfe <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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: <image007.png> <image008.png> <image009.png>
> Follow My Blog
> Domain Names Rewired
>  
>  
> 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
>  
>  
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>  
> <GNSO_MetRep_WG_Charter_v0 4 JWolfe redline.doc>


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)