Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms" this time
- To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Poll -- NEW ONE -- looking at "atoms" this time
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:50:52 -0500
try it this way.
"Require uso of ICANN-accredited Rr's" is a topic that i'm willing to negotiate
on -- no matter what my current view is. so rather than describing your
current position (yes or no), you're describing your willingness to change that
point of view.
On Jun 14, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Mikey, according to how I read your words, if one answers Green to (for
> instance) "Require use of ICANN-accredited Rr's", then you are willing to
> compromise and NOT require use of Registrars, and if you answer Red, you are
> insisting that Registrars MUST be used.
> This seems counter-intuitive. Or did I mis-interpret your intent?
> At 14/06/2010 10:57 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> hi all,
>> i've put together another poll for you. this one "inverts" Kathy's matrix
>> -- so instead of stating your views about the proposals, this one asks you
>> to state your views about the headings in the table -- the "atoms."
>> i've stolen Avri's idea for the definitions of the choices;
>> Green - definitely willing to compromise
>> Yellow - maybe some compromise is possible
>> Red - dead set viewpoint - deviation is a deal breaker
>> here's the link to the poll.
>> i've tightened up the security a little bit this time through -- i'm the
>> only person who can delete/modify entries this time. we'll see how that
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone 651-647-6109
>> fax 866-280-2356
>> web www.haven2.com
>> handleOConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)