Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Olga,

Yes, the version you have has all of the edits, including the last ones I made 
last week.

Thanks so much,
Julie


On 11/9/10 12:24 PM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Julie, I just wanted to check if all the edits were already there.
I will submit it to the OSC right now.
Reards and thanks to all.
Olga

2010/11/9 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
Dear Olga,

I am not sure what you would like me to do with the document.  I assume that
we want to leave it with redlined changes so that the OSC can see them.
There are no further edits of which I am aware so the document can be sent
in its current form I believe.

Thanks,
Julie


On 11/8/10 10:38 PM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Julie,
> please be so kind to prepare the final new version of the document so
> I send it to the OSC by tomorrow.
> many thanks and regards
> Olga
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2010/11/4
> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach
> Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31
> To: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-osc-csg
> <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Dear Olga and Work Team members,
>
> I have reviewed the modified version provided by Olga and made some
> additional changes that are highlighted in redline in the attached document.
>
> First, I called out more clearly the goals for the outreach program as
> stipulated in the BGC WG Report in Section 1.1 Background to attempt to
> address Mason's comments.   Note that the goals were included in the
> original document in the text quoted from the BGC WG Report, but I have
> listed them separately to make them more clear.
>
> Second, I made some very minor grammatical edits in the new text provided by
> Olga.  Please let me know if you would like me to make any additional
> changes.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Julie
>
>
> On 11/2/10 12:38 PM, "Olga Cavalli" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Dear working team friends,
>> Please chech the modified version and send comments as soon as possible.
>> If I do not hear from you by next Friday I will take silence as an ok
>> and will send the doc to the OSC.
>> Best regards
>> Olga
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: 2010/11/1
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach
>> Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31
>> To: Michael Young <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, OSC-CSG Work Team
>> <gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> I am attaching a version with some text additions related to what the
>> OSC pointed out.
>> Please review them and feel free to add more ideas and text if needed.
>> Julie, the background information about the BCG report that you sent
>> to me has been already included in the introductory part, right? If
>> not please be so kind to introduce it.
>> Looking forward for your comments.
>> Regards
>> Olga
>>
>>
>> 2010/10/27 Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Thanks Michael
>>> Comments are only the ones included in my email.
>>> I will draft some changes a will send to you hopefuly today.
>>> Regards
>>> Olga
>>>
>>> Enviado desde mi BlackBerry de Movistar (http://www.movistar.com.ar)
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: "Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:16:49 -0400
>>> To: 'Olga Cavalli'<olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>; 'OSC-CSG Work
>>> Team'<gnso-osc-csg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach
>>> Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31
>>>
>>> Olga I am happy to help, were there additional comments or just those in the
>>> body of the email below?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael Young
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vice-President,
>>>
>>> Product Development
>>>
>>> Afilias
>>>
>>> O: +14166734109
>>>
>>> C: +16472891220
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: October-23-10 7:46 PM
>>> To: OSC-CSG Work Team
>>> Subject: [gnso-osc-csg] Fwd: [gnso-osc] Revised Global Outreach
>>> Recommendations - for OSC adoption by October 31
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear work team,
>>> I hope you are doing well.
>>> I am including in this document comments from the OSC sent in relation with
>>> the the new version of our document.
>>> I will try to modify the document in order to consider these concerns, and
>>> then will send the document for your revision. If someone wants to join me
>>> in the effort please let me know.
>>> Regards
>>> Olga
>>>
>>>
>>> ...........................................................
>>>
>>> FROM RON ANDRUFF
>>>
>>> Philip,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I read this iteration of the recommendation from the OSC CSG WT and, while
>>> it provides some further detail, it unfortunately overlooks one of the two
>>> questions I posed when the initial version was sent to the OSC, i.e., ³Šthe
>>> Work Team¹s thinking behind the length of Committee member [OTF] terms, how
>>> to manage Œinstitutional memory¹ with members rotating off the committee,
>>> and so forth?²
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As I read section 2.1.2, the last para notes: The Charter should establish
>>> an initial term for the OTF of two years.  After this period a review should
>>> be conducted to review the success of the OTF¹s initiatives and, if deemed
>>> successful, the OTF¹s charter could be extended annually. Otherwise no
>>> information in regard to my questions can be found in the document.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue that I am struggling with is with regard to what does the size of
>>> OTF look like and what is the expectation for member rotation out and in?
>>> How many members in total; how many on the Steering Committee; are there
>>> staggered terms to ensure smooth transitions of departing and arriving
>>> members, or does the entire team get replaced wholesale, thus tasking the VP
>>> Communications staff member with maintaining institutional memory?  The WT
>>> may feel that the GNSO Council will work these issues out, but my sense is
>>> that the OSC CSG WT could provide more considered guidance to Council,
>>> having discussed and debated these issues in their deliberations.  Either
>>> way, the OSC needs to know this information before we can send the
>>> recommendations to the GNSO, in my view.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The recommendations clearly detail all that the things that the OTF will
>>> have on its plate so it would be helpful to know from the WT what it is
>>> thinking in terms of how many people the OTF will need to get the job done
>>> (and how the initial OTF will facilitate replacement volunteers when terms
>>> are up).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> RA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ronald N. Andruff
>>>
>>> President
>>>
>>> .................................................................
>>>
>>> FROM MASON COLE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Philip, Ron and others ­
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the new iteration of the recommendations.  In addition to Ron¹s
>>> useful questions and comments, I would like to offer the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a clear message here that additional participation in the GNSO
>>> should be encouraged; however, there¹s no statement I can find relating to
>>> an end objective (even in the BGC summary).  Participation seems to be
>>> encouraged for its own sake ­ an objective with which I don¹t disagree, but
>>> I believe the OTF would be able to orient its work much more quickly and
>>> efficiently if it were able to give participants a tangible reason (a
>>> ³what¹s in it for you²) reason for participating.  Another way to look at it
>>> might be to consider an answer to the question: We¹ll know the OTF is
>>> successful when what, specifically, happens?
>>> Related to the above, I suggest it would be useful for the OTF to consider
>>> metrics for, first, benchmarking and, second, measuring progress against
>>> objectives for participation.  This would be very useful in not only
>>> measuring its own success, but in reporting to the community how the
>>> community¹s resources were expended and what results were achieved due to
>>> those expenditures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don¹t mean this as critically as it may sound, but I am wary of the
>>> sometimes tendency for various ICANN groups to expend resources without a
>>> clearly defined objective or goal.  We should definitely encourage
>>> participation but should guard against any tendency to meander.