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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/12/10 2:00 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> ... 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.


Correcting for the typos and the non-native English, you would prefer
not to open a sub-group which excluded some subject, in particular,
single registrant. Your point made previously off-list.


We have advocates for single-registrant, and then Community-based and
Standard vertical integration policy development, else nothing.

We have advocates for Community-based and Standard vertical
integration policy development, and then single-registrant vertical
integration policy development.

We have advocates for Community-based and Standard vertical
integration policy development, and nothing else.

Somehow we have to work together, failing that we have to either work
apart, or not work.

Before only and after only can't really be expected to find a position
of compromise, and with only one exception I caught, every advocate of
single-registrant before only also expressed else nothing when the
primacy of their agenda was contested.

That doesn't leave a lot to work with.

Now assuming the advocates of SR-first-or-fail aren't going to change
their advocacy position, and I stopped reading their mail towards the
end of last week, as I no longer care where they go in advocacy terms,
they are going to have their policy recommendation(s) for the Council,
consisting of some specific policy for SR and incidental policy for
anything else that supports SR.

Everyone else is going to have some recommendation(s) about
Community-based and Standard vertical integration policy development,
and possibly single-registrant.

This will happen with, or without, the involvement of the co-chairs.
It would be nice if the Council gets a nice, well-thought out product
of collaboration and compromise, but absent those two features, the
Council will get two or more packages of policy recommendations. In
theory it could get a distinct, irreconcilable policy proposal from
every participant in the working group.

> 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.

As I've requested twice before, separate call time resources for
policy development which is not predicated on finding a vertical
integration policy recommendation for an application type other than
"Standard" and "Community-based".

Eric