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

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

On Jun 4, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Just to be clear, this should be a report of the WG, not the Chair. If
> there is no draft until *after* Thursday next week (the 10th), how does
> that leave enough time for the WG to vet the report, request edits and
> mods, etc. and still have it submitted to Council by the 13th?

yep, that was covered on the call too.  the WG writes the report -- i just 
volunteered to be the scribe a few calls ago.  

again, if we have a proposal we can unite around, the report is very "thin" on 
top of that.  basically just a cover memo on top of the major work products 
(proposals, summary table, etc.).  very short, and very content-free.  

without trying to be flippant, i'm compelled to say that we're already 
completely out of whack in terms of pre-Brussels deadlines.  this is compounded 
by the fact that we have a face-to-face meeting scheduled in Brussels on 
Saturday morning -- so the report could still be in flux as late as that time.  
i think everybody is going to have to prepare for some "muddling through" here. 
 


> 
> Given the amount of work many of us have to do to prepare for Brussels,
> and the current threads on the list, I don't see enough changing in a
> few days to warrant further discussion during call time. IMO, whatever
> is going to change in anyones' views needs to happen between now and
> Monday. From Monday and on, it's wrap time for the report if we really
> expect something that the members of the WG will feel they've had time
> to vet and feel they can support as actual WG report.

we debated Monday vs Thursday on the call as well -- and concluded that Monday 
was just a little bit too tight, that Thursday would give people some needed 
time to digest the DAG language and have compromise-conversations.  

> 
> Tim  
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
> From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 3:18 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 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.)

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