Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Bump -- Final or Interim report for Cairo? (was; Placeholder comments on Section 8)

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

In case it's not amply clear, I'm in favor of getting it right albeit late than 
turning in something on time that does not reflect the collective work of the 
group.


On 9/8/08 6:42 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



here i am, replying to my own email again.  maybe *that's* a clue why
we have so much email in this working group?

i just want to bump this up in front of your eyes one last time.  i'm
hearing no screams of support for driving to a Final Report for
Cairo, so i'm inclined to loosen up our time-line and try for an
Interim Report instead.   now is the time to scream if you'd rather
drive through to a Final Report.

thanks,

m

At 10:52 AM 9/8/2008, Mike O'Connor wrote:

>At 10:39 AM 9/8/2008, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>>Having a Final Report two days before Cairo begins, will not get it before
>>Council in Cairo because Councilors (other than me) will not have had time
>>to digest it.  I also agree that one week to digest the initial draft of the
>>report and suggest comments has been insufficient, not least because last
>>week was a short holiday week in the US.  We need at least another week, and
>>still could aim for an Interim Report at least ten days before Cairo.  (I
>>don't recall being opposed to this approach, sorry if I seemed so.)
>
>ah!  ok, that clears up a couple things -- and opens the door to a
>much easier schedule.
>
>other thoughts on this people?  i'm fine with the idea a driving
>towards an Interim report rather than a Final...
>
>
>>Any serious 'voting' in the WG needs to be carefully considered, not just
>>wrt the Staff issue.  The whole point of GNSO moving to the WG model is to
>>avoid voting.
>
>argh.  bad choice of words on my part -- substitute "polling, to
>determine where consensus lies" or some such.  whatever.  the main
>point of Wednesday's call was going to be to run through the
>"alternative suggested texts" document that Marika is preparing and
>try to determine whether there's one that we can pick.   if we slip
>the schedule out a bit, we'll defer that activity a few weeks until
>all the drafts are in.
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>Mike
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>>Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:26 AM
>>To: Dave Piscitello; Fast Flux Workgroup
>>Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Final or Interim report for Cairo? (was;
>>Placeholder comments on Section 8)
>>
>>
>>i'll kick this over to a new thread to pull it out of the
>>report-contributions you made.
>>
>>the deadlines are derived from the conversation we had last week, in
>>which we agreed that our goal is to get a Final report in front of
>>the Council during the Cairo meeting.  laying the tasks that need to
>>happen end-to-end gets the report done 2 days before the meeting
>>starts (you can look at the tasks/dates on the working-group
>>home-page).  slipping a week means that we don't have a Final report
>>ready by Cairo, that's all.
>>
>>one alternative is to go to Cairo with an Interim report, let the
>>Council take the report out for the constituency-review and
>>public-comment after the meeting and let staff summarize the
>>responses -- that would give us a *lot* more time to refine the
>>draft, but Mike Rodenbaugh was pretty opposed to this approach.
>>
>>what do people want to do?  drive for Final report, or ease the
>>schedule and present an Interim report?
>>
>>regarding your "voting in absentia" point -- have you and Marika
>>figured out whether you *can* vote?  my sense was that, as staff, you
>>weren't supposed to participate in that way.   what's the status of
>>that conversation?
>>
>>m
>>
>>At 10:13 AM 9/8/2008, Dave Piscitello wrote:
>> >This might work if I were coming home any time soon but I leave
>> >Sofia to attend meeting in Tallin Estonia. I get home late Saturday.
>> >
>> >I need to understand what deadlines we must meet that cause you to
>> >say we are out of time. Can you please identify these for the WG to
>>consider?
>> >
>> >I'll also note that it's challenging to vote in absentia.
>>
>>
>>
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1659 - Release Date:
>>9/8/2008 7:01 AM
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1659 - Release Date:
>9/8/2008 7:01 AM