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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent idea. That would give us another week, and based on nine years
of experience either following or participating in these processes, we
will need it.

But I am still confused about the reporting this WG intends to do, and
the overall process we are following. This is a formal PDP. While no WG
has ever made the bylaw mandated timeline, I don't believe there's any
basis for throwing out the rest of the PDP process, which for a WG like
this is defined in 8-13 of Annex A of the bylaws:
http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA

So I would encourage the co-Chairs to give due attention to that and to
the reporting requirements so that whatever this group comes up isn't
subject to question/debate later.


Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 4:17 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


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.)