RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey,

I am talking about a deadline for an interim report (deal memo,
whatever) for Brussels. It is a deliverable we intend to produce (in
whatever format/structure), and as far as I am aware there is no plan
for composing it or a date set for it to be done. That should be a high
priority topic for Monday. Who is producing it, what will it contain,
when will it be delivered. Keep in mind that the WG members will want to
see drafts, suggest edits, etc., at least I will. We really need to
start pulling it together.


Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, May 22, 2010 7:38 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

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






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.)