[gnso-vi-feb10] major points from today's call

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

here's what i took away from our call this week.  note, this is the first time 
Roberto is seeing this stuff, so he may have some refinements/corrections.  :-)

the table

-- is an internal tool, for our use in comparing proposals but not a deliverable

-- i'll pick up the "scribe" job -- partly because i have more time, and partly 
because it frees Kathy to be an advocate (she retains the gold star for 
developing it and seeing it through this revision)

-- we'll continue to update it until it is no longer useful

draft recommendation

-- this week we will begin the process of developing a single draft 
recommendation, something like the STI report

-- a step along that path is for proposal advocates to continue the negotiation 
that has been happening already

-- the goal for this week is to see whether some of the proposals can be 
consolidated -- and that perhaps we can begin to frame language that could be 
used as a starting point for discussion and inclusion in the draft report

calls

-- we will conduct a Doodle poll to determine the best time for adding a second 
weekly call, starting next week not this week.

-- we will pick one topic to focus on in each call, again borrowing from the 
STI process

-- i'd like to hear from people as to what topics the first and second call 
should focus on -- should we start with "easy" topics or "hard" ones?  i can 
see merit in each approach.

timing

-- we have two phases to the work we're doing as a working group, a short-term 
effort that needs to be roughly complete very soon (effectively by Brussels) in 
order to make it into the Applicant Guidebook, and a much longer phase that we 
haven't started yet which addresses issues that we haven't been able to resolve 
during this very compressed first-phase effort.

-- the first phase won't be done until roughly October (which includes 
revisions based on public comment and constituency-statements, action by the 
GNSO Council, action by the Board, and inclusion in the Guidebook).  it could 
be stopped much sooner than that if we don't arrive at any sort of agreement.

-- the primary assumption driving this schedule is that this will be the last 
iteration of the Applicant Guidebook -- that DAG4 is it.  if there turns out to 
be another iteration, we can always redo our approach, but i think it's a good 
idea for us to keep the pressure on and keep the "last iteration" assumption in 
place until we hear otherwise.

possible outcomes

-- one possibility is that we don't reach (rough) consensus on anything -- in 
which case we report that at Brussels, the Guidebook proceeds without our input 
and we launch phase two of our work

-- one possibility is that we reach consensus on a proposal of some sort and 
begin the work of getting it passed up through the Council and the Board 

-- one possibility is that we demonstrate substantial progress and good-faith 
efforts to arrive at consensus -- in which case we may be able to negotiate 
some more time to finish our initial work and launch the approval process

thanks again for hanging on the call an extra 15 minutes today -- i hope you 
all found it as helpful as i did.

onward,

mikey


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