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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Tim makes a good point about this starting as part of a PDP

Jeff,

Sorry, but I don't undersand. What *this* are you talking about? This is
a PDP, we can't morph it into something else on our own. The actionable
work product is a Final Report to Council.


Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 4:44 pm
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

Tim makes a good point about this starting as part of a PDP, but if we
hold to the rules, we need to come out with an initial report, put that
out for comment, then have the WG reassemble those comments (make any
changes if necessary) to come out with a final report, and then present
to the Council.....



Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:28 PM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items


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.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 3:43 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


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.)