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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi Alan,

i'm pretty taken with the idea of "seeing how far we can get in the time we've 
got" rather than trying to parse out in advance precisely which pieces fall 
into in the short-range and long-range sections of our work.  my thought would 
be to say that ideas fall in three categories

        -- things we agree should be done (included in short-term report)

        -- things we agree should not be done (included in short-term report)

        -- things we can't figure out (deferred for longer-term study/thinking)

i think we're quickly coming to a point where the proposals are going to be 
exploded into a series of ideas, with a matrix comparing where the various 
proposals come down.   Mike Zupke is working hard on the first draft of this 
matrix.  i don't think it'll quite be baked in time for the call on Monday 
(Mike has a 1st draft done but he wants to check his work with the 
proposal-advocates before releasing it and i think that's a really good idea).  
but soon.  at that point i think it will be easier to start working the ideas 
into those three piles and get a preliminary view of which ideas we're building 
consensus around and which ideas are going to need more/longer study.  

mikey
  
On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 
> Mikey, at the start of these meetings, we had some discussion on whether:
> 
> 1. Our first task was to address things that we feel NEED to be covered to 
> allow the successful launch of the new gTLD process, and then go back and 
> look at the long-term needs;   or
> 
> 2. We should aim immediately for the long-term approach and hope we can do 
> something prior to the (not firmly scheduled) gTLD launch.
> 
> Some of the proposals seem to take the first approach (what I call a 
> minimalist approach), and some the second.
> 
> It would be useful to know if both options are still on the table.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 23/04/2010 12:50 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> here's the standard weekly preview of the agenda, and call for agenda items.
>> 
>> i liked the mix of the conversation last time so i'm planning to leave it 
>> pretty much the same.
>> 
>> -- hear from proposal advocates
>> 
>> we have at least one new proposal (Brian's) and maybe one more.  so we'll 
>> spend some of the time talking about new proposals and divide up the rest of 
>> the time between those who'd like to speak.
>> 
>> -- 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.
>> 
>> -- talk about a proposal comparison-matrix
>> 
>> i've asked Mike Zupke to begin sketching out the framework of a matrix we 
>> can use to summarize and compare proposals.  he's scrambling to have 
>> something ready for our call and we'll give it a quick once-over if he does. 
>>  this is strictly a first draft and we'll be refining it together.
>> 
>> -- Analysis Team
>> 
>> we'll devote another chunk of the meeting to helping the analysis team with 
>> any questions they'd like to put to us.
>> 
>> 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.)

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

backup email -- oconnorstp@xxxxxxxxx (i'm having a little trouble with the 
haven2.com account right now)