RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items -- note, the calls next week are 30 minutes LONGER -- and suggestions for drafting teams

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, as I noted before, not all of us had the opportunity to
participate in the Molecule/Atom exercise. I don't subscribe to either
of the ones I've seen. While I'm sure you would like RACK fit into that
paradigm, it just doesn't shoe horn into it very well. I still support
RACK as the best way forward, at least for the first round. If we can
come to consensus on narrow, needs based types of exceptions I would
likely support an exception process as well.

So for the report, unless the other RACK supporters all feel
differently, I would want RACK to be considered on par with any of the
Molecule/Atom thingies in some manner. In fact, it seems to me that the
exercises in Brussels, while a good effort, just didn't advance anything
to consensus. So I don't really see the point in switching from the
proposal based comparison to the Molecule/Atom concept. In fact, I am
concerned that it will actually just confuse things further.


Thanks, 

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items -- note, the calls
next week are 30 minutes LONGER -- and suggestions for drafting teams
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 09, 2010 3:16 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


hi Tim,

it would be useful for a couple reasons. it would be helpful if the
summaries were in the same format -- so that they could be put "side by
side" without a rewrite. and, to the extent that some of the atoms may
not be described in a given proposal, it would be useful if those could
be described by the people making the proposal rather than inferred (or
left out).


mikey


On Jul 9, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Mikey,
> 
> Regarding the RACK+ summary, the entire proposal doc is shorter than the
> Molecule summary that's been circulated so far. Why can't the proposal
> itself be used? Maybe I'm missing something.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items -- note, the calls next
> week are 30 minutes LONGER -- and suggestions for drafting teams
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, July 09, 2010 11:51 am
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> hi all,
> 
> well, we're really getting down to the end of the marathon. we have to
> throw the Initial Report over the transom at the end of the week in
> order to hit all the lead-time deadlines that lead up to the Board
> retreat at the end of September.
> 
> so this is the time to find those points of agreement and write them
> down. we'll review the results of the drafting-group efforts on Monday
> and figure out our way forward from there. so the calls next week will
> be 2 hours long rather than the normal 90 minutes.
> 
> here's a thought or two for the drafting teams 
> 
> -- if i were in your shoes, i would try to find points of agreement by
> narrowing the scope of what we agree about. then, i would follow those
> points with a broader list of issues that remain unresolved, but that we
> will be continuing to work on during the public comment period. the goal
> here is to find *something* (no matter how narrow) around which there is
> broad agreement.
> 
> -- consider describing a series of conditions that may need to be met,
> after which other things could happen. one example that comes to mind is
> in the Compliance area. maybe we can say that certain things need to
> happen with regard to compliance, after which we would be more
> comfortable agreeing to other things -- but also describing why we are
> unable to come to consensus in advance. i remain convinced that much of
> the trouble we've had revolves around issues of trust, timing and
> knowledge
> 
> one last reminder. Keith submitted a summary of one of the two "Brussels
> molecules"... we need a summary from the RACK+ contingent at a minimum,
> and preferably similar summaries from the other "Brussels molecule" plus
> any other groups that would like to have their molecule included in the
> final matrix/molecule-polling.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109 
> fax 866-280-2356 
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> etc.)

- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109 
fax 866-280-2356 
web http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)