ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-wpm-dt] RE: Slides for council meeting on Wednesday

  • To: "'Olga Cavalli'" <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] RE: Slides for council meeting on Wednesday
  • From: "Ken Bour" <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:38:02 -0400



I thought the team agreed not to change our draft Chapter 6 and ANNEX ? only
the proposed initial timeline contained in the resolution.   Once the WP
process has run its course and the Council takes up the question of whether
any changes should be made to the procedures (based on public comments or
its own experience), that would be the time to make an amendment to ANNEX,
Section 2.3.    At this stage, we really don?t know whether the individual
rating period should remain permanently at 10 days or be extended to 15, 17,
20, or some other number.    




From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:25 PM
To: Ken Bour
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Glen de Saint Géry
Subject: Re: [gnso-wpm-dt] RE: Slides for council meeting on Wednesday


when using the link included in the power point:


it opens a document where Annex 2.3 says "10 calendar days" and not 17 as

Can we fix this? It is a pdf which is in the draft documents section.

Regards and thanks

2010/4/19 Ken Bour <ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Olga & Chuck:


This next version (KBv3) accommodates Chuck?s most recent suggestion.  


Also, I dropped Slide #2 (now hidden at the end) and added a new slide to
outline the ANNEX steps in more detail per Olga?s request.   These are the
steps that would occur for the 1st prioritization effort that are also
listed in the timeline.  


I don?t understand, Olga, what you mean about the template and difficulty
reading the last line.   The slides appear perfectly on my computer.   This
time, I attached a version as a PDF in case we are experiencing difficulties
between platforms and/or SW versions.   Please let me know if it looks OK? 




From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 6:11 PM

To: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Olga Cavalli

Subject: RE: Slides for council meeting on Wednesday


This looks good to me but I do have one more suggestion.  If it can be done
easily, it would be helpful if some estimated target timeframes were
included on slide 7 so as to give Councilors some perspective when the
various actions would happen, something along the line of what I did in the
attached slide.





From: Ken Bour [mailto:ken.bour@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 4:27 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'
Subject: Slides for council meeting on Wednesday

Chuck & WPM Members:


Attached is KBv2 of the slide deck for the GNSO Council Meeting this


Slide changes made (#1, #3, and #8 ? no changes):


·         #2 - WPM-DT Effort:  changed the title and agree it should be a
brief refresher to set context

·         #4 ? Councilor Questions:  moved up in sequence because it seems
like next logical slide in the flow

·         #5 ? Proposed Resolution:  new slide covering only the 4-part
RESOLVED portion (edited and trimmed)

·         #6 ? Timeline:  same content, but no longer hidden

·         #7 ? Recommendations:  new title; 1st bullet new (to cover Chuck?s
last comment); 2nd bullet retained to address managerial role issues which,
I think, should be noted so that Council is clear that WP is only the FIRST
part of a longer term process.  


Additional comments?




P.S.  The full Resolution is still in the deck, but it?s now Slide #9 (after
Questions) and hidden  -- just in case you need it.  


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 3:10 PM
To: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Olga Cavalli
Subject: RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] Slides for council meeting on Wednesday


Thanks for the quick response Ken.  My personal opinion is that the slides
should focus more directly on what we asking Council to approve in the
motion rather than on the work of the DT.  The motion itself probably is not
needed in the slides but a slide containing a brief listing of the four
parts of the resolution would be very helpful.  After that the timeline
slide would naturally follow.  And then the slide with the two questions.


I am not sure that slide 2 is needed but if it remains I would suggest
covering it very quickly.  Slide 3 is a good summary of the deliverable but
I think it can be covered fairly quickly.


I also think we need a slide toward the end that makes it very clear that
approval of the motion only means approval of the first prioritization
excercize and that, after that, we will review and improve the process and
approve the additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures.





From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 2:45 PM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Olga Cavalli'
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] Slides for council meeting on Wednesday

Olga & WPM Team:


Attached is a DRAFT set of slides proposed for the GNSO Council session on
Wednesday.   I wasn?t sure how much information you might want to convey, so
I based the content primarily on the key portions of the transmittal letter
and resolution.   At present, there are 8 total slides two of which,
Resolution and Timeline, are marked ?hidden? ? available only if needed.
Slides 1 and 7 are bookends, which leaves 4 main content slides that should
only take 5 minutes or so to present.   I did add a slide to address the two
Councilor questions that occurred on the email list.  


I am happy to make any additional changes that you would like? 




P.S.   I have been invited to attend the Council session and am planning to
do so.  



From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 11:19 AM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ken Bour; Olga Cavalli
Subject: Slides for council meeting on Wednesday


during the preparation of the meeting on Wednesday, we decided to present
the prioritization process with some slides.
It should not be a long presentation, rather short (5 minutes...) and then
have time for discussion and hopefully move forward with the motion after
Ken, could you help me preparing the slides? I can present the during the
call and you and others in the team can add comments if needed.
We shoul addreess  the concerns that were rised in the GNSO email list.
Any comments or suggestions are welcome.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy