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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sounds about right to me.

On Jul 12, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:

> 
> 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.)
>> 
> 
>