[gnso-pro-wg] Meeting Summary - 14 May

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

All,

Thanks to everyone who participated in today's meeting.  We accomplished
a lot.  Here's a meeting summary with action items in bold red. 

1.  Definitions.  Everyone is to use the list to put forth definitions,
revised proposed ones, etc.  More specifically, please use the document
I circulated today to add new definitions or propose suggestions.  If
you want to propose a new definition for an already-listed term, please
include it below the original definitions and identify it as
ALTERNATIVE.  If you want to revise a definition, you can do so within
the existing definition as long as you circulate a track changes or
redline.  Please indicate in your cover email to the list what you've
added or changed (e.g., added definition for X, changed definition for
Y).  During our meeting on Wednesday, we will "vote" on definitions put
forward and discussed via list; there will be very little time for
discussion.

2.  Proposed Principles.  We discussed the principles in the document I
circulated last night.  I will circulate a revised chart that reflects
the current "status" of the various proposals.    Please review it and
comment by list.  Everyone is free to post additional proposals with the
caveats that (a) the proponent must provide clear explanations and be
prepared to answer all questions posted to the list; and (b) the new
proposals should be in "final" form by our call on Wednesday.  

(Tim - We did not discuss your proposals because we wanted to ensure
that you had the opportunity to present them and answer the inevitable
questions.  We planned to do that on Wednesday if you will be on the
call.)

3.  IDN -related statement posted by Avri.  Please review the statement
and post a message to the list that sets out the following:  (a)  Do you
have any objection to or disagreement with this statement such that you
would object to using the "Agreement" convention for it?  If so, please
identify the basis of the disagreement and what changes, if any, would
allow you to support it.  (b)  If you do not have an objection to it,
please state if you believe we should draw a principle from it.  (c) If
your answer to (b) is "yes," please post a proposed principle using the
MUST-SHOULD-MAY convention.

-*-

Questionnaire results.  It occurs to me that I don't believe we've
discussed Liz's question of how to represent the questionnaire results
in the report.  Liz, did you have any suggestions in mind?  Anyone else?

Many thanks, all. Talk to you on Wednesday.

Kristina