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

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

ahhhh.

Tim, i think you and i have been talking past each other -- my apologies.  i 
was thinking that you had picked the 13th out of the air as a mechanism to 
self-impose more pressure to reach agreement.  i was not aware of the rule that 
Kristina (and you, i bet) are working off of.

i'm quite in favor of Kristina's approach to seek a motion like this, because i 
foresee the possibility that the substance of our deal may be a moving target 
right up to the Brussels GNSO meeting on Sunday and i think we need the wiggle 
room.

i'll also paste your other reply in here, so we can keep this all in one 
thread...

On Jun 4, 2010, at 4:32 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> It should include background on why the WG exists and what it has been
> tasked to do.
> It should have some discussion about how we got to whereever we get.
> It should include description/discussion as to how constituency
> statements were considered/used.
> It should include discussion of what has been done with regard to
> fulfilling the charter objectives.
> 
> This is a formal PDP. In order for the Board to consider anything we
> produce, it must first pass Council. Personally, I don't see what you
> are proposing as anything the Council could officially act on, but I
> would imagine that is not the intent at this stage. 
> 
> At the least, I would think we would want this to be considered the WG's
> initial report and post it for public comment. The report should have
> enough background to explain it to those not as well versed in what the
> WG is all about, and enough information for readers to understand the
> proposals, tables, etc. and how they came about.
> 
> Content free can often be seen as substance free.

i don't disagree with getting started on this -- let me ping the staff folks 
and see whether they can get going on a draft of some of these sections.  

mikey



On Jun 4, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:

> 
> Tim,
> 
> I realize this is not entirely "responsive" to your question, but there
> may be another way . . ..
> 
> I have *not* checked the relevant GNSO procedural rules.  With that
> disclaimer, would the WG be supportive of a Council motion that would be
> voted on in Brussels that would, for purposes of the specific vertical
> integration issue and given the extraordinary circumstances, suspend the
> 10-day rule?  If the Council passes the motion, that would enable it to
> discuss the issue and whatever documents emerge by Brussels.
> 
> If there is support in the WG, I would be willing to propose the motion.
> 
> K
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 4:32 PM
> To: Mike O'Connor
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.)