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

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

On Jun 4, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Mikey,
> 
> I have two concerns/questions. First, will you be getting an updated
> table to the WG before the Monday call? By Sunday at the latest? The
> more in advance we get it, the better our time will be utilized on the
> call.

my plan is to publish a version of the table tomorrow morning, presuming i get 
updates from people.  right now that task is looking really easy, because i 
haven't gotten any updates.  so i'll use this is an opportunity for one last 
plea for table-updates from proposal advocates.  today.  please...

> Second, the report. We need to have it to the Council by the 13th
> or it may not make the Council agenda for Brussels. That gives us nine
> days to pull it together including vetting with the WG.
> 
> My personal opinion is that we should focus on the table (because it
> will be an integral part of the report), and on the report itself. The
> harms can be included in the report as a work in progress. But we should
> not be spending any more time on calls on "meta-discussions" prior to
> having our report ducks in a row for Brussels.

ah.  it took me a minute to realize that you weren't on the call yesterday.  so 
let me recap a conversation about the report (it starts around Minute 52 of the 
MP3 if you want the report-specific stuff, or Minute 40 if you want the broader 
context).  here are the high points;

-- we missed our self-imposed deadline for a deal (which was yesterday) -- 
partly because people are still digesting the new language in the DAG

-- we're feeling the need to continue to self-impose pressure to try to get to 
a deal before Brussels and, cutting out a long conversation here, we decided to 
set our deadline back a week and try for a deal by next Thursday's call

-- Brian Cute suggested pretty much what you have, which is to use the 
report-writing as a "pressure point" and i discouraged that -- primarily 
because it's my view that our report is really just going to be a very light 
"wrapper" around the deal that is represented by the proposals.  thus, it won't 
take very long to craft.

-- there are two likely outcomes for how the report looks.  either we'll have a 
deal, and the report will say "here it is."  or we'll have several different 
proposals that people rally around and the report will say "here they are, and 
here's how the group lined up behind these proposals."  my preference would be 
the former.

-- the starting at Minute 59 in the MP3, we discussed the use that the Board 
might make of our proceedings and report.  Jeff Echaus kicked this off with a 
question when i made a comment about the Board vs GNSO as consumers of our 
work.  it's true that the direct consumers of our work is the GNSO -- but the 
Board is observing our effort with a great deal of interest.  the new draft of 
the DAG includes language that leaves the Board with the option of coming back 
and reconsidering their position on VI at some point in the future and my 
strong preference would be that we unite around a position and run it through 
the GNSO process to approved policy rather than leaving multiple options out 
there for the Board to consider.

sorry about the long recant, but that's the background on why i'm so keen on 
the "meta discussion" that Avri kicked off, and also my seeming lack of concern 
about report-writing logistics.  it's not that i don't care.  it's just that i 
really really care about seeing whether we can bridge these wide divides and 
arrive at a position we can unite around and support.  we've got a fair 
distance to travel between where we are now and a deal -- let's try to cover 
that distance by Thursday next week.  if we do, i promise we'll have a pretty 
good draft interim report by the 13th.

mikey


> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 10:03 am
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> as we work our way toward Brussels, i'm always looking for ways that our
> phone calls can be used to advance your work. here's my list of agenda
> items so far, but feel free to add things that you think would help move
> things along.
> 
> -- review the updated proposal-comparison table (note to proposal
> advocates, please send me your updates today)
> 
> -- review the early-draft table of Harms (i'm working on that now)
> 
> -- continue the "meta-discussion" that Avri kicked off on the list today
> -- trying to find a way to bridge the divide
> 
> 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.)