Re: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency Operations Work Team

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,
thanks for the exchange of ideas.

I must confess that I am worried that we are spending much time on this
discussions and not focusing on our concrete objectives.

So I want to suggest the following:

1- As agreed in our kickoff meetings Julie will produce meeting minutes,
including action items. Comments and additions can be made after she sents
them to the list.
Then they will be posted in the wiki.

I agree with SS that minutes are useful so I do not think they should be
substituted by transcripst or mp3 recording, which can be also uploaded in
the wiki for reference.

Victoria, if you think that minutes do not reflect all that was said during
the conference call, feel free to send these suggestions / changes to the
list.

2- MP3 recordings and transcripts will be available for reference in the
wiki.

3- Meeting minutes will be posted in the wiki for reference, with all
changes suggested by the team members.

I think we should focus on our next steps and try to be flexible in relation
with the process, which we can adjust as we keep on working among our team.

Please let me know your comments about this suggested items and lets try to
move forward.

On the other hand unfortunately I will not be able to chair the next
conference call on May 8, I will be in meetings all day long in Amsterdam.
Michael have kindly agreed to chair the next conference call.

Regards to all

Olga








2009/4/29 Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>

>
>
> Chuck, as to “If all that is meant is that we need to look at the full
> report and not just the enumerated points in our work plan, that is fine. I
> would just like to clarification on that.” That’s a yes –that is all I
> mean.
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 29 April 2009 13:37
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy; sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry;
> jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> *Cc:* OSC-CSG Work Team; Olga Cavalli
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
>
>
>
> My alarm is different.  I am concerned that we spend so much time on
> process that it seriously detracts from meeting our objectives.  The real
> test of our success will not be how perfect our processes were but the
> recommendations we produce so I think we should be spending much more time
> in that direction.  I suggest we get to work on what counts.
>
>
>
> Also, I don't think I understand Victoria's suggestion that "the
> enumerated points from the BGC Report which are minimums for our work". Our
> mission is specifically to develop implementation plans for the
> recommendations in the BGC report, nothing more, nothing less.  If all that
> is meant is that we need to look at the full report and not just the
> enumerated points in our work plan, that is fine. I would just like to
> clarification on that.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Victoria McEvedy [mailto:victoria@xxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:29 AM
> *To:* sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* OSC-CSG Work Team; Olga Cavalli
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
>
>
>
> I’m sure SS is quite right and I apologize for being the one raising these
> issues.
>
>
>
> Many of my concerns are addressed by the fact we now have transcripts
> –which I find very helpful.
>
>
>
> I think this means that in future we don’t need to paraphrase exchanges in
> a blow by blow fashion and can revert to a more traditional minute format.
>
>
>
> Substantively in relation to our last meeting on 24 April, given the format
> used, I don’t think the key points of our exchanges on the following have
> come through; (1) on not being locked down to the work plan and the plan
> having only the enumerated points from the BGC Report which are minimums for
> our work and to put it aside for now and not be limited by it (transcript
> pages 22-26); and (2) the exercise the board is undertaking etc (transcript
> pages 42-26).
>
>
>
> In relation to the meeting minutes of 10 April, I’d like to make one point
> which I think is important and that I would like to see in the minutes, and
> that was our agreement that the work plan be a live document (transcript
> page 27).
>
>
>
> I don’t wish to cause any more work for Julie or anyone else and am happy
> to make these points at the beginning of our next meeting so they are
> included in those minutes and do not take up any further time—if agreeable.
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> *Solicitors** and Attorneys *
>
> [image: cid:669FC637-760A-4D2F-B56E-2C180C1870CC]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
> * *
>
> *www.mcevedy.eu  ***
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> *From:* SS Kshatriy [mailto:sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 29 April 2009 05:11
> *To:* Glen de Saint Géry; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* OSC-CSG Work Team; Olga Cavalli; Victoria McEvedy
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Subject-- Transcrip vs Meeting Minutes
>
> 1. I am quite sure that transcripts are of very poor quality. Atleast, what
> I said is not there.
> 2. It is beyond my comprehension why is there so much resistance for
> producing Meeting Minutes?
>
> 'Minutes of Meeting' is very basic and essential item. It is an important
> record. General practice is that the first thing done in the next meeting is
> review of previous minutes.
>
> Transcript/MP3 can be useful only in case of any controversy.
>
> 3. We are spending too much time and effort on unproductive issues.
>
> regards,
>
> SS
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 4/28/09, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
> From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
> To: "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>, jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: "OSC-CSG Work Team" <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Olga Cavalli" <
> olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Victoria McEvedy" <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 3:39 PM
>
> Thanks Glen.  It seems to me that the transcripts are quite a useful
> resource that do not require much effort.  Does it make sense to try using
> them instead of minutes for awhile as a test?  If so, we might want to still
> have an action item list.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]
> Sent:   Tuesday, April 28, 2009 06:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To:     jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc:     OSC-CSG Work Team; Gomes, Chuck; Olga Cavalli; Victoria McEvedy
> Subject:        RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
>
> Dear All,
>
> Little editing is needed for the body of the transcripts. A header,
> attendance sheet , and  correcting names is added. I must get them out
> quickly and that part is also getting fixed! Sorry for the delays!
>
> Glen
>
> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>]
> Sent: mardi 28 avril 2009 22:09
> To: Glen de Saint Géry
> Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team; Gomes, Chuck; Olga Cavalli; Victoria McEvedy
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
>
> Dear Glen,
>
> Perhaps you could help us with a question: How much editing is required
> before meeting transcripts can be posted and how long does this editing
> process generally take?
>
> Thanks so much for your help.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:39 PM
> To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; Olga Cavalli; Victoria McEvedy; Glen de Saint
> Géry
> Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
> Thanks Julie.  I only looked briefly at the first transcript but the
> quality looked fine to me.  I will help of course if we alway identify
> ourselves when we talk.
>
> Key question for me: how much edititing needed to be done before posting
> this?
>
> Chuck
>
> ________________________________
> From: Julie Hedlund [mailto:jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:30 PM
> To: Olga Cavalli; Victoria McEvedy; Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry
> Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
> Dear Olga, Victoria, and Chuck,
>
> I see that the transcripts now are online.  These are being produced for
> all of the teams so they will be available whether we decide to use them or
> not.  I will await guidance from the Work Team as to whether they are of
> sufficient quality to be useful by themselves, or whether they should be
> supplemented with meeting notes/minutes.  In addition, perhaps Glen can
> advise us on how quickly they can be made available after a meeting.
>
> Here are the links and I also will add them to the wiki.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund
> Policy Consultant
>
> OSC-Constituency Operations Work Team Meeting Transcripts:
>
> 27 March 2009: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-ops-27mar09.pdf
> 10 April 2009: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-csg-20apr09.pdf
> 24 April 2009: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-csg-24apr09.pdf
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]On
> Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:09 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Victoria McEvedy; jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
> Thanks Chuck,
> I agree that we must check the quality of transcrips before considering
> them valid.
> We agreed during our kickoff meeting in Mexico to produce meeting minutes,
> that should be reviewed by the working group and posted into our wiki.
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2009/4/28 Gomes, Chuck 
> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> Unless things have changed recently, the work to distribute reasonable
> quality transcripts may not justify the value.  If the transcripts produced
> by the teleconference service were of reasonable quality and immediately
> usable, that would be good.  In the past though, my understanding is that
> they needed significant editing before they were effectively usable.  We
> need Glen to tell us how much editing work is required to prepare
> transcripts for distribution so that we can determine whether the value
> justifies the effort.
>
> I have no problem with them being posted so that we can decide for
> ourselves how much value they add, but I just suggest that we don't expect
> too much.  Transcripts of audio teleconference meetings should not be
> assumed to be the same as the live transcripts produced at ICANN regional
> meetings.
>
> Chuck
>
> ________________________________
> From: 
> owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>>
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx><
> mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>>] On
> Behalf Of Victoria McEvedy
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:21 PM
> To: Olga Cavalli; 
> jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx<jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
> Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
>
> Julie thank you.
>
>
>
> As to general approach, to avoid paraphrasing, if we are going to have
> transcripts as well as recordings -we can in future perhaps forgo this and
> simply refer to the transcripts for minutes?
>
>
>
> I don't know what others views are.
>
>
>
> Perhaps instead then at the end of our calls we can agree our action
> items/deliverables/decisions made -and leave people to find the reasoning in
> the transcripts?
>
>
>
> In relation to the summary of our last two calls, I'd like to defer to the
> transcript on a couple of points so will wait until we have them available.
>
>
>
> Thank you and best,
>
>
>
> Victoria McEvedy
>
> Principal
>
> McEvedys
>
> Solicitors and Attorneys
>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01C9C860.2A18E520]
>
>
>
> 96 Westbourne Park Road
>
> London
>
> W2 5PL
>
>
>
> T:    +44 (0) 207 243 6122
>
> F:    +44 (0) 207 022 1721
>
> M:   +44 (0) 7990 625 169
>
>
>
> www.mcevedy.eu
>
> Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority #465972
>
> This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the
> exclusive use of the addressee(s).  This email and its attachments may also
> be legally privileged. If you have received this in error, please let us
> know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without
> reading, copying or forwarding the contents.
>
> This email does not create a solicitor-client relationship and no retainer
> is created by this email communication.
>
>
>
> From: 
> owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx<owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>>
> [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx><
> mailto:owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>>] On
> Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
> Sent: 28 April 2009 18:15
> To: jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx<jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> Cc: OSC-CSG Work Team
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
>
>
>
> Thanks Julie,
> very helpful.
> Regards
> Olga
>
> 2009/4/27 Julie Hedlund <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx<
> mailto:jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx <jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx>>>
>
> Dear Work Team Members,
>
>
>
> The draft notes summarizing our discussion at our 24 April 2009 meeting are
> posted at
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_constituency_operation_work_team_meeting_notesand
>  are linked from the main wiki page at
> https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team.  I
> welcome your comments and suggested changes.
>
>
>
> Also, Glen de Saint Géry, the GNSO Secretariat, has informed me that she
> will be posting transcripts of all Work Team meetings on the GNSO Calendar
> site at: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#april.  As those for our team
> become available, I will link to them from our meeting notes.
>
>
>
> In addition, the MP3 recordings for each meeting are linked to the meeting
> notes.  If you scroll down the notes page you will see, listed in
> succession, the meeting notes for all of the meetings to date along with
> their MP3 recordings.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Julie
>
>
>
> Julie Hedlund
>
> Policy Consultant
>
>
>
>