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

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

i'm striving to keep as much of the "process" stuff off of the calls as i can.  
it would be great it we could hammer this stuff out on the list rather than 
using call-minutes where every minute represents half a person-hour or more.  
especially when those minutes can be used instead to help the deal making 
process along.

so yep, that intermediate deadline is the same one i'm talking about too.  
again, the question is -- who should set the intermediate deadline?  the WG or 
the co-chairs?  either way is fine with me.  my "going in" position, if it were 
left to me, is that we spend the next 4 calls (the next two weeks) with the 
goal of a deal at the last call.  that would, coincidentally, give me a nifty 
60th birthday present since Thursday 3-June is my birthday.  that would also 
give us a couple weeks to polish up a report in time for Brussels.  would a 
quick poll be in order to verify those dates or should i just Pronounce The 
Plan?

regarding the report-writing.  it seems to me there are similar choices.  a) a 
co-chair could act as scribe (i'd be happy to do that), b) a WG member could 
act as scribe, c) a sub-group could do it.  logistically, it might be easier if 
i did it, but i'd like a sense of the group on that -- again, we could put that 
out there as a quick poll.

but my overall view is that scribing the report is the easy part -- arriving at 
the agreement is the hard part.  like the STI document, the report is likely 
just going to be a series of bullets that mirrors whatever agreement we reach.  
if you asked me to write it, i can't imagine it would take more than a day to 
come up with a first draft, once there was a deal in view.  conversely, it will 
take a miracle-worker to come up with a report if there isn't any agreement.  

a final thought, stolen from an old systems-implementation rule.  a perfect 
process to write a report won't yield a deal.  a broadly-supported deal is easy 
to write up in a report.  

so i really really want to keep us focused on arriving at a deal.  i'm all ears 
when it comes to ideas that will help do that.

mikey


On May 22, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 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.)
> 

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