Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] the way forward regarding proposals, drafts and polls

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well put, Roberto. I agree in principle with your outline. 

RA 

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:35:49 
To: 'Mike O'Connor'<mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the way forward regarding proposals, drafts and 
polls


As suggested by my colleague co-chair, I waited until after dinner, when I
am usually in a better mood ;>), to post my comments.
The report should list all facts. Among the facts I have the following:
- several proposals were made, none of which had consensus
- proposals have evolved in time, the number thereof has been reduced, as
some have merged
- still no consensus
- individual elements (atoms) of each proposal have been identified
- polls have been conducted to check peole's opinion about the atoms
- in Brussels, there has been an attempt to build a Frankenstein's monster
;>) with the elements we had - two proposals came out (caveat: not everybody
was in Brussels), neither of which had consensus
- starting from the atoms, we have identified areas of potential (albeit
limited to some specific aspects) consensus - three subgroups have been
formed to deal with these issues (Exceptions; Compliance; SRSU)
- discussions have taken place on what will be the default (or fallback)
position - there seem to be rough consensus that if nothing comes out from
this WG the default position is the Nairobi resolution plus DAG4 (although
there is still disagreement on whether the baseline is Nairobi or DAG4 and
whether these are really different)

My personal idea is that we will not have a proposal getting consensus,
although there will be proposals that might get more support than others
(i.e. higher scores in the beauty contest, but no landslide vote) - this is
to be verified via the poll.
However, I sense consensus that we need to build a list of cases
(exceptions?) in which VI will apply (under the assumption that the baseline
is "no VI").
Also I sense consensus that compliance, and enforcement thereof, is a
fundamental part of the process, and that it should therefore be defined,
and resources allocated.
I also sense rough consensus that SRSU is a case to be debated, with a
prevailing attitude to consider this as a special case to be treated
differently. My own opinion is that, once we agree on which is the baseline,
SRSU could become one case in the "exceptions" category.

These three subgroups, and their relative outcome, have to be mentioned in
the report as rough consensus points, or at least steps on the way to
consensus. What I mean is not that we have consensus on the list of
exceptions or on the compliance document, but that we have rough consensus
on the facts that we need procedures to enforce compliance and that we need
to have procedures to deal with special cases.
The compliance document as well as the exception list will be built while
the public comment period is ongoing, and this will allow us to listen to
all stakeholders and take their opinions into account for our final draft.

Any strong disagreement?
Roberto



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, 12 July 2010 21:51
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] the way forward regarding proposals, 
> drafts and polls
> 
> 
> hi all,
> 
> Roberto and i held on to the conference bridge for a few 
> minutes after the call and came up with this approach to the 
> "proposals and polls" discussion.
> 
> 1) all proposal-advocates should send the latest version of 
> their proposal to the list by this time tomorrow (noon PDT, 
> 2pm CDT, 3pm EDT, 20:00 GMT).  preferably in the shared 
> format, but not required.
> 
> 2) we will poll on all proposals, similar to the way we 
> polled before Brussels, including the two new "Brussels 
> proposals" in that poll -- this will be included as the level 
> of support for each proposal in the "Proposals" Annex of the 
> initial report.
> 
> 3) we will also build and conduct an "atoms" poll, and will 
> use the proposals as the basis for the values of the atoms in 
> that poll.  again, this will be used to describe the range of 
> views of the working group in an Annex to the report
> 
> 4) sub-teams will develop another draft of their sections 
> (Compliance, Exceptions, SRSU) by that same "right about this 
> time tomorrow" deadline so that we can also build a poll to 
> determine level of support for those drafts
> 
> 5) the polls will get built later in the afternoon tomorrow 
> and will be opened up as quickly as we can -- we'll take a 
> snapshot of the results a few hours before the call on 
> Thursday provide the results of that snapshot for the call
> 
> the body of the report will focus on those areas where the 
> sub-teams are working -- some sort of exceptions process and 
> a statement about the value/need for a robust compliance 
> function.  we can debate whether poor old SRSU gets its own 
> section of the report or gets included in the (preliminary, 
> to be refined) list of exceptions.  if any other areas of 
> agreement emerge from the polling, we'll highlight and 
> discuss those on the call Thursday
> 
> nope, this isn't perfect -- but we're out of time for "perfect."
> 
> 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.)
>