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

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

i'm not disagreeing with Tim, i just want to keep the discussion on the list 
rather than burning call-minutes on it. 

so here's a tentative approach and some deadlines.


-- deadline for agreement -- 3-June

-- if there's an agreement to write a report about, deadline for 1st-draft 
report -- 7-June

-- deadline for final-draft report -- 14-June

-- Mikey to act as secretary and scribe.


does this seem workable?  i know, it's not reasonable -- but nothing about this 
part of our work is happening on a "reasonable" schedule.  :-)


mikey

On May 24, 2010, at 3:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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.)
>> 
> 

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