Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items
hi Tim, sorry about the sluggish reply... deadline i've heard from a couple of folks that a firm deadline would be helpful. i'm reluctant to just propose one at random though. i'm viewing this much the way i would view any deal negotiation -- clearly the drop-dead deadline is Brussels, but we could easily structure in some earlier ones if they would help you. my question to you and the rest of the WG is this. would you prefer to pick those intermediate deadlines yourselves (i could whip up some Doodle polls to get that done) or would you like Roberto and me to pick them for you? i'm inclined to let you pick (better ownership) but don't want to distract you from the Main Event. deliverable again, i've been viewing this chunk of work like a deal-negotiation. so i think the deliverable for Brussels could look like the STI deliverable. a series of "deal points" (some with alternates) and an indication of the level of support -- in business terms this might be a deal-memo or a memo of understanding. i've attached one of my "golden oldie" process-memos from the early days of the working group (way way back 6 weeks ago) as a reminder. if you look on page 12, you'll see that i described our deliverable for Brussels as a "3-5 page document describing the Vertical Integration policy (framed more as a memo of understanding than as a detailed contract)." that's my story and i'm sticking with it. i think that the headings of Kathy's matrix give us a pretty good outline of the topics that could be addressed in the deal memo, but they're not exhaustive. i think the contents of the memo are really defined by what the WG negotiation produces. i think it would be useful if proposal-advocates could frame their work that way, but there really isn't a predetermined approach here -- the memo should reflect that deal that you strike, no more no less. this ancient document is confusing with regard to the names of the phases -- it calls the post-Brussels chunk of work "Phase II." this shouldn't be confused with what we're *now* calling Phase II, which is the much-broader, much-longer "Perfect-world Approach" that's described on pages 2 and 3 of this document. but the structure of the work remains the same -- after Brussels, we will take the deal-memo down one level of detail (to a "contract-language" level) and forward that to the Council and Board for approval. if we get to that level of detail pre-Brussels, that's fine it just means less work after Brussels. but that may be too hard. hoping this helps, mikey Attachment:
VI Project v5.pdf On May 21, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: > Mikey, > > I would first prefer to: 1) nail down a deadline for a report to the > Council for discussion in Brussels and possibly as an update to the > Board; and 2) determine what that report will look like - what will be > in it. > > I think we should try to have the report to the Council by 9 or 10 June > - about 10 days prior to the GNSO Council working sessions in Brussels. > > (Note that the Council meets 10 June, but I think a simple/brief update > from the Chairs a week prior would suffice for that meeting.) > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items > From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, May 21, 2010 11:37 am > To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx > > hi all, > > Roberto and i were commenting on how quiet this list became this week, > and noting that we seem to be entering the negotiating phase of this > frenzied effort. these are Good Things. > > > we were wondering what would be the most helpful use of our call next > Monday and i volunteered to call a few of you and ask (i know, what a > concept...). > > > here's what i've heard. > > > -- yes indeed, there are conversations going on. > > > -- it *would* be useful to have topics on the call that would help move > those negotiations forward. > > > i've gotten a bunch of ideas for topics, but i'm still interested in > more suggestions. > > > -- my favorite idea so far is to devote some time to a listening session > where people describe their concerns about the proposals (and suggesting > ideas that might mitigate the concern) and proposal-advocates just > listen and take note. so no debate, just listening. i think that this > might inject some really useful information into the negotiations. > > > -- people also suggested specific discussion-topics that might be > useful. here's the list so far > > > -- do the restrictions apply only within a single TLD or across all > TLDs? > -- equal-access rules > -- "edge cases" of the percent-ownership -- zero percent and 100 > percent > -- exceptions > so that's the initial plan. about half the call devoted to a listening > session, and about half to topics. > > how does that sound? i'm still listening to ideas... > > > thanks, > > > 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.)
|