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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Victoria.
Julie please could you make the corresponding changes into our meeting
minutes in order to reflect Victoria´s comments?
Robert once you have the information about the Board please let us know.
Best regards and thanks
Olga

2009/4/30 Victoria McEvedy <victoria@xxxxxxxxxx>

>  Thank you for clarifying and rounding up then Olga.
>
>
>
> I do have the comments already mentioned as to the last two meeting
> minutes. Namely:
>
> Re our last meeting: (1) we agree not to be locked down to the work plan as
> the plan has only the enumerated points from the BGC Report which are
> minimums for our work and we agreed to put it aside for now and not be
> limited by it (transcript pages 22-26); and (2) I’d like Robert’s comments
> about the exercise the board is undertaking to go in verbatim (transcript
> pages 42-26).
>
> In relation to the meeting minutes of 10 April, I’d like to add our
> agreement that the work plan be a live document (transcript page 27).
>
> Thank you and 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:* olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
> *Olga Cavalli
> *Sent:* 29 April 2009 15:01
> *To:* Victoria McEvedy
> *Cc:* Gomes, Chuck; sskshatriy@xxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry;
> jahedlund@xxxxxxxxxxx; OSC-CSG Work Team
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-osc-csg] 24 April Meeting Notes: OSC-Constituency
> Operations Work Team
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>