Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Final Version - GNSO Working Group Guidelines

["S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am okay with Caroline's 2 remaining suggestions. Perhasp not an 
"interst" check at every meeting, but periodically by the chair as a 
best practice.

Caroline Greer wrote:

> Thanks Marika.
>
> In relation to comment 3, I did not realize that was the case for all 
> WG meetings. If this is indeed now common practice, no problem, we can 
> drop that one.
> As regards comment 6, I personally think it would be helpful to add a 
> comment somewhere that a Chair might need to run checks throughout the 
> life of the WG (eg for renewed DOIs) and not just at the first 
> meeting, as a matter of best practice.
> Thanks again,
>
> Caroline.
>
> *From:* Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* 31 May 2010 10:50
> *To:* Caroline Greer; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; J. Scott Evans; 
> gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Final Version - GNSO Working Group 
> Guidelines
> Hi Caroline,
>
> Comment 3 is in my view correct. All WG meetings are normally recorded 
> and transcriptions are provided. Maybe you are thinking of the live 
> scribing, which is indeed not normal practice?
> I’m happy to include your proposed edit on comment 4, unless there is 
> any objection from other members in the WG.
> In relation to comment 6, the Chairs checklist, it was my 
> understanding that this checklist related to the first meeting of the 
> WG, not every meeting, so adding a check for DOIs for every meeting 
> would require a separate check list or further explanation.
> I would like to encourage other members of the WT to share their 
> views, especially if they differ from my interpretation.
> Thanks,
>
> Marika
>
>
> On 31/05/10 11:41, "Caroline Greer" <cgreer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks Marika.
>
> I am surprised that of my six comments, comments 3,4 and perhaps even 
> 6 are considered as ‘substantial’. To me, they are more common sense 
> edits and/or a reflection of what actually happens in WG situations.
> I have included those 3 comments again below. Are we really not able 
> to include them? I’d hate to be bothering the PPSC with such minor issues.
> Many thanks,
>
> Caroline.
>
> */3. The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 4.1 says, 
> “As described above, meetings are normally recorded and transcribed.” 
> Perhaps we should change this to “As described above, meetings are 
> normally recorded or transcribed" as both rarely happen from what I 
> understand.
> 4. The last sentence of the first paragraph on page 20 says, “If 
> funding is required to organize such a meeting (e.g. travel expenses), 
> a request should be made to the Chartering Organization for approval.” 
> It might be good to add "with as much advance notice as possible".
> /*
> */6. Finally, in Annex I, Chairs Checklist, we might want to add a 
> check for Disclosures of Interest in each meeting when new issues are 
> being discussed.
> /**/
> /*
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* 31 May 2010 10:30
> *To:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr; J. Scott Evans; gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-ppsc-wg] Final Version - GNSO Working Group Guidelines
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find attached the final version of the Working Group 
> Guidelines, incorporating / addressing the comments and edits provided 
> by Avri, J. Scott and Cheryl. In relation to Caroline’s comments, 
> apart from comment 1, I did not include her other suggestions as these 
> seemed to be more substantial than just edits and therefore requiring 
> further discussion by the WT, noting that there will be an opportunity 
> to address these in the PPSC discussions. I hope this is acceptable.
> If there are any other edits /typos that need fixing, please let me 
> know as soon as possible, but no later than 18.00 UTC today (Monday 31 
> May). Following that, I will submit the document for posting.
> Thanks!
>
> Marika
>
> On 31/05/10 10:55, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Only thing I noted in the version sent was an odd bit odf what looked 
> like 'comment' still in line in the Page 1 Sec 1.1 Background, 
> paragraph 2 line 4 from :...and; secondly, what guidance should be 
> provided to a WG on elements such as structuring, norming is this a 
> word? perhaps 'setting norms' would be less neologistic, tasking, 
> reporting, and delivering the outcome(s) as chartered (the working 
> group process)." that needs fixing...
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
>
>
>
> On 31 May 2010 10:53, J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sent attachment in second email. Sorry for the confusion!
>
> On Sun May 30th, 2010 5:32 PM PDT Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
>
> > I saw no attachment of the mark up file :?
> > But I'm sure they would be agreeable...
> >
> > Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> > (CLO)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31 May 2010 10:18, J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > I like Avri's fix to the GNSO issue. I have made just a few editorial
> > > revisions on top of Avri's comments.
> > >
> > > j. scott evans - senior legal director, global brand and trademarks -
> > > Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > *From:* Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> > > *To:* Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > *Cc:* J. Scott Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > *Sent:* Wed, May 26, 2010 1:28:00 PM
> > > *Subject:* edit pass
> > >
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > it was such an enthralling read, i went through to the end - and 
> this after
> > > asking for an extension.
> > >
> > > i did a lot of markup and tried to propose some solution to the GNSO-CO
> > > issue. might have gone too far, but do not think i did anything
> > > substantial.
> > >
> > > i also pointed out some areas that might need a patch or two.
> > >
> > > i am fine with shipping it once these or equivalent fixes are made.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > a.