Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft Preliminary Report

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry I misread that.  Yes, I have no problem with that.

Antony


On Jun 14, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Antony,
> Actually, I agree with you about the polls, and particular the most recent 
> poll.
>  
> My comment was about including the Proposal-Matrix—the Table. Hope that’s OK J
> Best,
>  
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
>  
> Visit us online!
> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
> See our video library on YouTube
>  
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>  
>  
>  
> From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 1:12 PM
> To: Kathy Kleiman
> Cc: Margie Milam; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft Preliminary Report
>  
> I am having a very hard time filling out the new poll (for the reasons have 
> given).   Furthermore, I am struck by the presumptions of the poll.  
>  
> Most of the questions presume a restriction on competition and from there 
> carve out either broader or smaller exemptions.    This in spite of the fact 
> that the majority of respondents favored the free-trade model, which presumes 
> the opposite.  
>  
> As we know, results of polls largely depend on the questions asked.  
>  
> I must disagree with Kathy in wanting to include the results of this poll in 
> any executive summary, because of the inherent skewing.
>  
> Antony
>  
>  
>  
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 
> 
> Margie and All,
> Tx for a first draft of the Preliminary Report. Appreciate it in such a busy 
> time!
>  
> Following up on my comments on the slides, I think the Proposal-Matrix should 
> be included in WG Report in a prominent way – reflected in both the Executive 
> Summary and having its own section of the Report. The Proposal-Matrix is a 
> snapshot of work to date – of the many proposals submitted, of the effort 
> spent on each one, and of the compromises which followed.
>  
> As Mikey’s new doodle shows, it contains key elements of agreement/key atoms 
> of discussion and review. It is a compilation and a “reader’s guide” to our 
> work.
>  
> Thus, I would recommend that the Proposal-Matrix be part of both the 
> Executive Summary and have its own section of the Report:
> -          Executive Summary could explain the proposal submission process, 
> the enthusiastic responses, the Proposal-Matrix as a compilation, and provide 
> a direct reference to the Proposal-Matrix in the Appendix and online.
> -          Report Section: I think we also should create a separate section 
> of the report presenting the Proposal-Matrix, and explaining each of its 
> elements (the ones along the horizontal edge). Those reading may not be as 
> familiar with the acronyms, or underlying concepts as we are.  One or two 
> sentences per Matrix column should be sufficient to explain the concepts.
> -          Note: I like the way Mikey has prepared the matrix with 
> new/current proposals on top, and older proposals below (our evolution!)
>  
> That’s the thought.
> Best,
>  
>  
>  
> Kathy Kleiman
> Director of Policy
> .ORG The Public Interest Registry
> Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
>  
> Visit us online!
> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
> See our video library on YouTube
>  
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 6:04 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft Preliminary Report
> Importance: High
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> As discussed on today’s call, please find attached for your review a very 
> rough first draft of the Preliminary Report for the VI Working Group.    
> Please note that the content largely covers background information and 
> documents related to the PDP, but needs substantial revision to describe the 
> substantive proposals and support levels associated with them.  
>  
> Specifically, more content is needed for the following sections:  1. 
> Executive Summary,  4. Substantive Proposals with Initial Levels of Support 
> within the VI Working Group, and 5. Conclusions and Next Steps.  
>  
>  
>  Best Regards,
>  
> Margie
> _________
>  
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> ___________
>