[gnso-vi-feb10] Doodle / VI Second Weekly Call
- To: "gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Doodle / VI Second Weekly Call
- From: Gisella Gruber-White <Gisella.Gruber-White@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:56:52 -0700
Further to Mikey’s email, please find attached a Doodle poll to schedule a
second weekly call.
This has been scheduled for 90 minutes but please use the COMMENTS option under
the Doodle poll if you are not able to make the full 90 minutes.
Please complete this Doodle poll by Friday 21 May 2010 at 1800 UTC. The date &
time will be announced shortly thereafter.
------ Forwarded Message
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 14:09:19 -0700
To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] major points from today's call
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. :-)
-- 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
-- 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
-- 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
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- 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.
- - - - - - - - -
web www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com>
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
------ End of Forwarded Message