RE: FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Weekly status report -- good

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,
For clarification, tThe anti-trust memo was reminded to us co-chairs on
Friday as a pending issue from the past, so we decided to include it in the
agenda for 10 minutes, while for Kathy's proposal, it was clear, at least so
I thought, that we were open to new proposals to be presented. As she so
requested, we thought fair to follow up.
At one point in time we will close the window for new proposals, and at that
point in time that will be it, and we will work on the existing ones, under
the assumption that most points will be included in at least one of them.
Incidentally, would the WG agree that we would close the window for new
proposals "soon"? Maybe a week from now?
At the same time, we can proceed with the discussion on the evaluation of
the proposals, so that we have the ground work done (and start the real one
;>)
To your request for resources, there's nothing the co-chairs have against
"separate call-time resources for policy development not dependent upon the
single registrant", but I do not understand exactly what that would mean. I
(personally) would exclude to open up a sub-group wharw you can discuss
everything *except* an item - but I did not consult with the co-chair.
However, if there is one specific item that you want to discuss, just
propose it, and I am sure that, if there's some support, we will make up
time and resources for it.
I hope that helps.
Cheers,
Roberto



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, 12 April 2010 19:09
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: FW: [gnso-vi-feb10] Weekly status report -- good
> 
> Co-Chair Roberto,
> 
> I appreciate that items not on the agenda Friday, the 
> anti-trust memo and Kathy's proposal, are on the agenda mid-Monday.
> 
> It is my hope that making the minority cap proposal, whether 
> for the pre-Nairobi status quo, or for symmetry (a cap on 
> registrar ownership in a registry), available via email will 
> be as effective as using call time, though I could be wrong. 
> I think details, questions on the unclear parts of any 
> proposal, are a better use of voice time than initial 
> presentation. It is a choice of style, and I could be wrong there too.
> 
> Last week I requested separate call-time resources for policy 
> development not dependent upon the single registrant 
> question. I don't know about prophecy, but I do think it 
> would be less conflicted if those pursuing SR above any other 
> goal and those pursuing goals other than SR weren't in 
> contention for a single resource.
> 
> Eric
>