Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items

["Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mikey,

Ive decided to do my proposal next Monday . I ll rehearse it for 10 mins 
duration. Margie, Ill send over by close of business today. It will become 
clearer - but I would like others on the WG "to run it" ( of course that is 
if everybody wants to press ahead with it) - which would allow me to be an 
evaluator.
AOB . I noticed that "audit " came into conversations yesterday. As an 
accountant / ex auditor , in the context of VI , this is yet something else 
that needs to be thrown into the mix( I feel). Would it possible /allowed to 
get David Giza , Head of Compliance / Audit for ICANN in on a call one week 
?
Economists ? Salop/ Wright re MMA proposal - Good idea

Good luck to those to fellow Northern Europeans try to get to meetings via 
plane in the next week ! . Amazing sunsets as a result of the "volcanic 
dust" .
regards

Phil




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:49 PM
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items


> hi all,
>
> here's a preview of the agenda for the call next Monday -- and a call for 
> any crucial items that i may have missed.
> in overview, this call will be pretty heavily weighted toward content and 
> hardly any process.  i'm always navigating between the camps who want more 
> content vs those who want to know where we're going.  i strayed pretty far 
> in the process direction last week and received some bracing negative 
> feedback.  :-)
> -- hear from proposal advocates
>
> this week we'll spend the bulk of the call hearing from all 
> proposal-advocates.  we'll take an hour of the call and split it evenly 
> between all advocates who want to talk.  so you advocate type people, 
> think in terms of roughly 10 minutes each which you can spend any way you 
> want.
> -- possibly-maybe hear from the economists
>
> this is another hold over from earlier agendas.  Roberto and i agreed that 
> it would be helpful to provide the WG the opportunity to ask questions of 
> the folks who wrote the report.  we're not sure whether we can get them on 
> the call, but it we can we'll drop them into the agenda this week or next.
> -- talk about evaluation criteria
>
> we've got a great turn out for the Evaluation Team, so we'll spend about 
> 15 minutes having a conversation about evaluation criteria to kick them 
> off.  we are thinking that the first job of (the as-yet unnamed) 
> evaluation team should be to spend a week or two focused on refining 
> evaluation criteria.  this doesn't mean that the rest of us don't get to 
> provide input, only that they will do the heavy lifting and make sure that 
> we've got a workable draft.  so we may want to have a bit of conversation 
> on the list prior to the call, but we'll spend some of our time having a 
> conversation about this.
> that's it.  all content, all the time.  :-)
>
> do people have any other items they'd like to see on the agenda?
>
> mikey
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax  866-280-2356
> web www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
> etc.)