ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before our call on Thursday

  • To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before our call on Thursday
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:46:02 -0700

Do we have to redo the poll? 

Tim  
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it
before our call on Thursday
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 14, 2010 10:11 am
To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


hi Jeff,

thanks for the acknowledgement of my awesomeness. :-)

i've touched, and i hope fixed, all but the last point in your list
Jeff. take a look and see how i did. i await the will of the group on
point 5.

here's a new link to preview the poll without having to actually take
it. it obsoletes the one below, which points to the old version.

http://bit.ly/afCGve

mikey


On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:04 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> A couple of quick comments on the poll:
> 
> 1- Awesome job putting this together. It looks great
> 2 - The opening line of the BRU1 statement begins "There was strong 
> consensus................" This is misleading as there was strong consensus 
> of the RACK group that wrote BRU1. None of the other proposals state this and 
> ask this be corrected immediately as it is misleading
> 3 - Question 21 asks in addition to 2. Are these questions linked? It seems 
> they are.
> 4 - Why are we expressing minority opinions in Question 34? If Kathy Kleinman 
> is opposed to Question 34 she can answer opposed. The other groups may have 
> had consensus but I did not hear unanimous consent from other groups. They 
> did not list all dissenting opinions from each member
> 5 - I thought that BRU2 allowed self distribution up to the de-minimus amount 
> , 2% or 5%. may need some help from others in group on this
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Mike O'Connor [mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:40 PM
> To: Jon Nevett
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before 
> our call on Thursday
> 
> hi Jon,
> 
> egad... what a good idea.
> 
> here's a link to a "preview" of the poll -- it looks just like the poll, 
> except it doesn't collect results. the only trick is, you have to put 
> *something* in the required "name" question to get to the next page. my 
> favorite answer is usually "sdsdsd"... your choice.
> 
> http://bit.ly/afCGve
> 
> m
> 
> 
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 7:57 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Mikey:
>> 
>> Thanks for your hard work on this. Would you publish the poll questions for 
>> review in an e-mail . . . just in case something got lost in the translation 
>> in one of the questions.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> hi all,
>>> 
>>> thanks for all your hard work on various proposals, atoms, etc.
>>> 
>>> i've spent the afternoon cutting and pasting and have a (pretty long) poll 
>>> put together for you. i found that i reviewed your work pretty carefully 
>>> and learned a lot as i put the poll together. i'm hoping it will prompt you 
>>> to look through your collective work with "fresh eyes" as you complete it.
>>> 
>>> here's the link to the poll
>>> 
>>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Initial-report-poll
>>> 
>>> PLEASE try to complete it by 3 hours before our call on Thursday to give me 
>>> a bit of time to scratch together a preliminary summary.
>>> 
>>> note -- i didn't get updated versions of the SRSU or Compliance writeups, 
>>> so they're cobbled together from the drafts we had for the Monday call. try 
>>> to imagine where we might take them as we continue to refine these drafts 
>>> over the next few weeks (while the public comment period is open) when 
>>> expressing your support...
>>> 
>>> 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
> privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, 
> Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the 
> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this 
> message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

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





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy