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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim's approach as described below. 
It's time to start pulling it together. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 11:55 AM
> To: Mike O'Connor
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for agenda items
> 
> 
> 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.)
>