RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

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

No idea as to deadline.  As I will be out for the next few days, I
suggest you go with whatever Mike and Liz would prefer as to process.


________________________________

        From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:41 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
        
        

        Kristina:  Thanks for pulling all of this together.  What's the
process/deadline for comments to this draft?  Jon

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:31 PM
        To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

         

        All, 

        Attached is the current draft of the report.  Here's what
changed since last night's version. 

        Added Kelly's Introduction. 

        Added definitions.  I used the definitions I suggested this
morning minus my subsequent revision to RPM.  I indicated that there has
not been discussion of the Rights of Others section.

        Created a fee-specific section in Outcomes.   All fee-related
principles and proposals are here.  Intro makes clear there are no
levels of support.

        Created a new RPM section in Outcomes.  All new RPM proposals
(Peter's, Mike's, and mine) are here.  Intro makes clear that there's
been no decision and there's outstanding work.

        Classified all other proposals as Agreement, Support,
Alternative View.  I used the following methodology.  I started with the
chart I circulated last night and re-characterized the levels of support
based on the postings today.  If only one person objected to a proposal,
I characterized the support as Agreement.  If only one person objected
to a proposal and provided their own suggestion, I characterized support
for the original proposal as Agreement and identified the objector's
suggestion as Alternative View.  I characterized the level of support as
Agreement ONLY if there was unanimity OR there was only one objection.
Please check these carefully.  Any mischaracterizations ARE NOT
intentional.  (Avri, I integrated your comments in #16 in way that I
think you would find agreeable.  Please check 4.2.5))  Finally, I listed
in Outstanding work everything that had not been substantively discussed
and/or had not resulted in level of support.

        -*- 

        The report needs formatting clean-up as the spacing and may not
be consistent.  I also did not change New RPM Proposals to reflect
agreed-upon terms.  I'm sure there's something that I did or did not do
that is not mentioned here.  Any and all omissions are unintentional.

        K 

        <<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07
17_29.DOC>>