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

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
>
>