Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Turning the Preliminary Report to an Initial Report

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

ah.  this is quite lovely.  thanks Margie.  let's discuss this approach on the 
call Monday.

thanks!

mikey


On Jun 11, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Margie Milam wrote:

> Mikey,
>  
> It’s really up to the working group to decide these things, including what 
> they would like to include in the Initial Report.     My concern with calling 
> it an Initial  Report at this stage is that it doesn’t appear that the VI-WG 
> has reached consensus yet on the likely recommendations, nor has it even 
> narrowed the list down to 2 or 3 top approaches.  
>  
> Here’s a suggestion for the group to consider:
>  
> 1.       On Monday, the VI-WG  identifies  the 2 or 3 proposals that will be 
> highlighted in the Preliminary Report
> 2.       The proposers of these finalists draft text  explaining their 
> positions to be included in the Preliminary Report by COB  next Tuesday (15 
> June) 
> 3.       Someone on the VI-WG volunteers to assists with drafting content on 
> the current state of deliberations, and perhaps includes observations from 
> the VI working Group on the ABG v.4 board proposal
> 4.       All comments to the draft Report circulated yesterday should be 
> delivered by COB next Tuesday (15 June).
> 5.       The Preliminary Report is published by no later than Friday of next 
> week (18 June)
> 6.       The Brussels meeting is dedicated to discussion of these finalist 
> proposals and attempting to identify the proposal that has garnered the most 
> consensus, and any minority positions if no consensus is reached
> 7.       The Stakeholders/Constituencies would use Brussels time to 
> update/retract their Statements as appropriate, and hopefully support one of 
> the finalist proposals.
> 8.       The Initial Report would be published for public comment shortly 
> after Brussels (early July) that describes this consensus, and primarily 
> focuses on reporting on Objective 1, which is:
>  
> “Objective 1: To make policy recommendations that provide clear direction to 
> ICANN staff and new gTLD applicants on whether, and if so under what 
> conditions, contracts for new gTLD registries can permit vertical Integration 
> or otherwise deviate from current forms of registry-registrar separation, and 
> equivalent access and non-discriminatory access. “
>  
>         The Initial Report would also include the updated 
> Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements.
>  
> 9.       After analysis of the public comment in August,  the recommendations 
> are adjusted as appropriate, and the Final Report is  produced by the end of 
> August. 
> 10.   The GNSO Council could then act on the recommendations in September.
>  
> I’ll be happy to discuss this suggested timeline more on Monday’s call.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Margie
>  
>  
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: Margie Milam
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Turning the Preliminary Report to an Initial 
> Report
>  
> thanks Margie.
>  
> could you kinda break this down for me?  i'd really like to see a "what needs 
> to be done, by whom, by when" list of tasks/dates/deliverables to get us to 
> where we need to be.  this is a great start, but i could use a little more 
> granularity.
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Margie Milam wrote:
> 
> 
> All-
>  
> I looked into this issue of whether the VI-WG report could be an Initial 
> Report rather than a Preliminary Report.   In referring to the Initial 
> Report, the Bylaws state:
>  
> "The Staff Manager will take all Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements, 
> Public Comment Statements, and other information and compile (and post on the 
> Comment Site) an Initial Report …"
>  
> That leaves a lot of flexibility for the working group in what should be 
> included in an Initial Report.  My understanding is that the Initial Report 
> usually addresses the tasks outlined in the PDP Charter.  However, since the 
> Working Group has not completed its analysis on any objective in the Charter, 
>  it may be premature to call the information contained in the report as an 
> "Initial Report." 
>  
> In looking at the document I circulated yesterday, the document already 
> includes some Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements, and a summary of the 
> Public Comment Statements.  However,  I recall that some of you were still 
> attempting to update or prepare Constituency/Stakeholder Group Statements for 
> this purpose.  If the report is to serve as an "Initial Report," we should 
> make sure that all of these statements are current, or delete the ones (if 
> any) that are now out-of-date.
>  
> It is also important to note that the Initial Report will need to be posted 
> for public comment of twenty (20) days, and this would be the last public 
> comment period required under the Bylaws prior to GNSO Council approval.  As 
> a result, the Initial Report should ideally reflect the likely 
> recommendations to come from the working group.  If the proposals are not 
> sufficiently developed, then the public may be unable to meaningfully 
> participate and respond.
>  
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Margie
> ____________
>  
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> ____________
>  
>  
>  
>  
> - - - - - - - - -
> 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.)