RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Matrix summary

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Group:

Here is another example of the kind of item the group should sort through
that in the next call or calls.  

Regarding the first Cybersquatting recommendation (row 4), the RAPWG
recommended "the initiation of a Policy Development Process by requesting an
Issues Report."  So the choice for Next Step would therefore be "Develop
Policy (PDP)."  But half the Implementation Team members selected "Advisory
Group" instead.

For Uniformity of Contracts (row 20), the RAPWG also recommended the
creation of an Issues Report.  Every member of the Implementation Team chose
"Develop Policy (PDP)".

What elicited the differing responses regarding Cybersquatting?   

All best,
--Greg






-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Aaron [mailto:gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 9:28 PM
To: 'Mike O'Connor'; 'gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Gomes, Chuck'
Subject: RE: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Matrix summary

Thanks, Mikey!

There may be a little confusion about terminology and what some of the
choices meant.   The group should sort through that in the next call or
calls.  For example, with "Malicious Use of Domain Names," the RAPWG chose
not to recommend a PDP or Initial Report, and instead recommended the
creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries
address the illicit use of domain names.

Seven members of the implementation team made these choices for "Malicious
Use of Domain Names":
* Initiate advisory group       
* Request initial report 
* Launch drafting group

But maybe all those respondees really meant the same thing?  Those seven
agree that the GNSO should get a group together to write best practices?  If
so, we need to normalize the responses.  

All best,
--Greg






-----Original Message-----
From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 4:32 PM
To: gnso-rapimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rapimpl-dt] Matrix summary

hi all,

thanks for your work on the matrix!  i've stapled them all together in this
summary version.

cast your eyes along the bottom of the spreadsheet -- there's a tab for each
of your responses, and then a tab that summarizes each of the columns.
while our "sequence" result is a little choppy, the rest of the columns show
substantial areas of agreement.  

here's a thought -- take a look at the various "results" tabs and
familiarize yourself with our answers.  take note of the areas where you
disagree with the prevailing view and determine which ones you feel strongly
about vs those which you are comfortable with changing your choice.  either
is fine -- that's what this consensus thing is all about.  but it would be
nice to have you think about that a bit in advance of the meeting.

then we'll breeze through the tabs to the right of "sequence", see if we can
get pretty close to agreement on the "non-sequence" stuff, figure out how to
handle the issues that came up when we were filling out the "sequence"
column and send ourselves off for a second go at the matrix next week.  i
bet we get really close to agreement after that round.

the spreadsheet may whine at you about "external links" when it opens.  you
can select the "ignore" choice if it does.

thanks again,

mikey