[gnso-vi-feb10] Chat transcript from today's call

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

here's the chat transcript from the call today...

mikey




Antony Van Couvering:Hi everyone
 Antony Van Couvering:Anyone there?
 Mike O'Connor:yep...
 ken stubbs:roberto +1
 Ron A:@ Mikey: my poll results are not noted, neither Tony Harris's... Do we 
re-enter them or can you find them?
 Michele Neylon:Ron A - he didn't get all the more recent votes in - mine 
aren't there either, as I left it so late
 Keith Drazek:the poll is illuminating and shows there is no consensus on any 
of the proposals/molecules, so i think it was helpful, but agree it shouldn't 
be considered gospel
 Michele Neylon:bloody day job getting in the way as usual  :)
 J.C. Vignes:Hello everyone !
 Keith Drazek:FYI, for anyone to accidentally clicked on the 'preview' link for 
the poll (the older version) you'll have to re-do the poll. i learned the hard 
way
 Jothan Frakes:(sorry, off-topic) those of you offering registry services 
please let applicants know about it through my survey 
:http://blog.jothan.com/?p=222
 CLO:I agree  with the POll discussion sentiments of Roberto & Ken  after all  
I stated I ended up middle ground WAY more than I intended/expected... it's an 
indicator of perhaps need for change and or tool bias and interpretation issues 
 from my POV
 Roberto:@Keith: that was the intention, to have a tool to measure consensus, 
not a commitment from anyone
 Ron A:@ Michele: Thanks for that;  I filed it first thing this morning...
 Keith Drazek:@roberto: correct, i was agreeing with your comment ;-)
 Michele Neylon:Ron - depending on your timezone that might have been 5 minutes 
ago or 5 hours ago :)
 ken stubbs:support keiths statement re: poll 
 Ron A:The fact that they are public vis-a-vis this WG is fine, but we needn't 
put them in the report.
 Ron A:@ Michele: good point... ;o)
 ken stubbs:ron +1
 Michele Neylon:French = Sebastien probably
 richard tindal:how many votes were not included in poll file?   Tony H, Ron A, 
 Kristine R,  others?
 Michele Neylon:Jothan - was that similar to the survey you did after Paris ?
 Sébastien:Sorry it was me
 Sébastien:yes French
 Keith Drazek:did you all click on the 'preview' link for the poll? 
 Michele Neylon:Sebastien - we don't hold that against you .. I'm Irish :)
 Keith Drazek:if so, it wasn't captured and you'll have to re-do it
 Jothan Frakes:@michele yes, like the one I did after Paris 08
 Ron A:Yes,. those who are not counted please check in now so we know how 
relevant the numbers are.
 Sivasubramanian M:The poll could be on the following structure:
 Antony Van Couvering:I don't see any reason to keep anything secret
 Sivasubramanian M:Should the domain industry be regulated with rules of 
limitations on ownership and control?Yes No
 Jothan Frakes:+1 antony
 volker greimann:+1 for inclusion
 Sivasubramanian M:If yes, what percentage of ownershipIf yes, what percentage 
of controlIf yes, what are the exceptions?
 Jothan Frakes:I am completely fine with my answers being public
 Sivasubramanian M:If NoWhat contractual modificationsWhat changes in 
compliance framework.
 Michele Neylon:Siva - draft one then :)
 Antony Van Couvering:The trouble with the poll is that the questions aren't 
clear enough -- they need some explanation so that anyone who hasn't been 
buried in this stuff will understand
 Keith Drazek:+1 jeff
 Ron A:-1 Jeff E
 Antony Van Couvering:The Board in particular should have the wisdom of this
 Ron A:Can you send the "live link" to the list Mikey to make sure that all of 
us have the right one
 Antony Van Couvering:-1 Ken
 Sébastien:Where can we see the list of the participants?
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Antony
 Sivasubramanian M:Michele, I don't mind preparing the outline for a new poll, 
or making a rough design, but is this structure generally acceptable to the 
group and is the idea of a new design generally acceptable?
 Antony Van Couvering:Ken
 Antony Van Couvering:Never mind
 Antony Van Couvering:The Board deserves full information, esp. in the case 
where there is little agreement
 CLO:Yes  Ken is outlining EXACTLY  the issue NOT that I was confused 
 Berry Cobb:+1 AVC
 Antony Van Couvering:Let's be clear what's is confusing on the face of it, and 
what can be made confusing by those who wish to confuse
 Michele Neylon:Siva - I like your questions - they're simple and to the point
 jeff neuman:What does it mean to use the poll as a "tool"?  Not trying to be 
sarcastic, just trying to figure out what that means
 CLO:Put  the data on the Wiki space perhaps
 CLO:summarry data
 Berry Cobb:@ Siva, I would be interested in seeing your version of the poll.  
I think your logic is a right start, and will be a good starting point when we 
reconvine.
 Antony Van Couvering:I am reminded of the argument of not having new TLDs 
because people would be "confused"
 Berry Cobb:@ AVC, LOL
 Ron A:@ Jeff: as a tool for the WG to determine where the group's mind is.  
Not as an imperical determination on where we all stand.
 Sivasubramanian M:Michele, the idea of this structure is that the group can 
broadly and easily be divided into two, that of those who believe in ownership 
limits and control and those who don't belive that ownership limits and 
controls solve anything
 CLO:    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Initial-report-poll
 Ron A:Thanks, CLO.
 CLO:is the CORRECT link to Poll
 Sivasubramanian M:This first question can determine the number of people for 
or against VI
 Antony Van Couvering:Agree with Tim, but I don't think it's that hard to 
provide background
 Sivasubramanian M:Then we go into questions
 Michele Neylon:Siva - yes - makes sense
 Antony Van Couvering:Certainly the Board is qualified to understand the issue
 Roberto:@Jeff: we (cochairs) are trying to have the equivalent of a "show of 
hands" in a F2F meeting
 ken stubbs:amadeu +1
 ken stubbs:no opinion on Hake fish
 Michele Neylon:I disagree with all this talk about polls not being understood 
- anyone who bothers reading any of this has probably got an interest in it
 CLO:indeed  Armadeu
 ken stubbs:unless grilled..
 Ron A:I rest my case!
 Michele Neylon:nobody in their right mind is going to bother with this stuff 
unless they have an interest
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:A better tool than this type of survey:  conjoint 
analysis.  see here for some background 
info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoint_analysis_(marketing)
 Phil Buckingham:And have chips with it
 Michele Neylon:and if they haven't followed it .. 
 Sivasubramanian M:In poll design, there are areas where there is a definite 
yes or no answer
 Sivasubramanian M:And there are areas where the answers are fuzzy
 Antony Van Couvering:I think there is a good "landscape" view of the support 
for various idea from the poll.  No reason to hide it.
 Antony Van Couvering:It doesn't have to be perfectly designed to show that
 Michele Neylon:Agree with Jeff 
 Michele Neylon:the board aren't stupid
 Michele Neylon:now they might be a lot of other things :) But stupid isn't one 
of them
 Antony Van Couvering:+1 Jeff
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Forgot to add - the poll was not perfect
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:but nothing is
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:and it is what we have
 Keith Drazek:in my opinion, the poll serves one function...showing there was 
no consensus. it's a binary consensus/no-consensus indication of the result of 
the WG
 Michele Neylon:and discussing the merits of the poll to death doesn't help 
anyone
 Jothan Frakes:The poll just reflects the temperature of the participants, so 
for example, if our ranks were more heavily attended by registrars, then the 
outcome would favor registrars
 Ron A:@ Antony: You are simply putting a bad face on what we are saying... 
There is no issue of 'hiding', rather ensuring that only imperical data is 
submitted (as opposed to 30 individual's best guesses...
 richard tindal:keith +1
 Antony Van Couvering:Keith - shows that and it shows that some proposals have 
very little support at all -- either as a whole or in their particulars
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Keith's statement
 richard tindal:two quetions/ recommendtions had slightly more than  50% In 
Favor
 Sivasubramanian M:@Mike, poll design is a very complicated exercise. Research 
firms such as Gallop assign teams for weeks to do the poll design, you have 
created polls in matters of hours, all alone, definitely not bad.
 richard tindal:but that didnt incliude Tony, Ron, Kristina etc
 jeff neuman:@Richard - which ones...
 richard tindal:SRSU  and  Applies to first round only
 Ron A:@ Richard: I'm filling in now; I expect Tony and others will do so today 
as well.
 Ron A:+ 1 Ken re disclosure 
 jeff neuman:@ken - ok, lets use it to go forward and only address the top 
proposals and eliminate the proposals that had the least support?
 Antony Van Couvering:At this point our task is to provide the Board with a 
clear picture, as concise as possible, of the nature of our disagreements, the 
arguments pro and con, and some sense of the relative support for the different 
position.  This is not difficult; the poll is just one part of that.
 Keith Drazek:AVC +1
 amadeu Abril i Abril:let's do a poll on whether to publis hte poll....
 jeff neuman:Someone is still breathing real heavy!
 amadeu Abril i Abril:Frankly, i don't care: we did the poll, and this is not a 
secret group
 Antony Van Couvering:Also don't forget that this has to go through the filter 
of the GNSO council; I would be more worried that their summary is inaccurate.  
Our task should be to prevent misundertandings at that level as well
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Is interesting to see who is against the poll being included 
in the report. 
 volker greimann:i believe we discussed using trhe poll in the report before 
the poll opened
 Berry Cobb:@ Jeff, its the same breather in every call.  Almost as though he 
does not have a mute button
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:maybe we have a poll about the poll being included
 Michele Neylon:/me is losing interest in this discussion about the poll fast
 Ron A:@ Amadeu: many of us have yet to have our poll responses counted...  
That is one reason NOT to include this poll.
 Jothan Frakes:@michele +1      Honestly, let's move on....   I just want to 
get vertically integrated with a frickin job
 Antony Van Couvering:@jeff - it is interesting, isn't it?  I think we are 
seeing the beginning of the lobbying campaign
 Michele Neylon:Jothan - I'd give you a job if I could 
 Jothan Frakes:thanks for that michele
 Ron A:@ Jeff E: Uncalled for, Jeff.  There are others who are not on this call 
today who may well feel the same way as I do.
 Paul Diaz:When will the public comment period on the WG report be open?  Well 
ahead of the Board retreat in September 2010?
 Antony Van Couvering:@Tim - context is important, but is the poll itself
 Jothan Frakes:+1 mikey
 Antony Van Couvering:= but so is the poll itself
 Sivasubramanian M:Reading and Interpreting poll resposnes is also a complex 
exercise.  Sending the results of a poll in which the participant's responses 
are approximations, that too to questions that are not scientifically framed 
with specific expertise in poll design, would confuse or mislead the Board. We 
can send a summary of responses to broad questions, send a summary of trends, 
but definitely not a question by question report on a poll such as the most 
recent one
 Sivasubramanian M:with no specific expertise in poll design
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Can we please address the heavy breathing?
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:The Poll is most useful on an individual basis...forcing 
each of us to think about our positions.  It is not so useful when aggregated.  
You need a different type of poll to draw any conclusions of concensus of the 
group.
 Antony Van Couvering:Whoever coughed -- PLEASE put your phone on mute
 ken stubbs:+1 tom
 Jon Nevett:Perhaps the breathing is due to all of the dancing around the poll!
 Michele Neylon:Jon - ROFL
 Ron A:+ 1 Tom
 Berry Cobb:One take away from teh poll, is that hardly anyone can live with 
DAG v4!
 Michele Neylon:heavy breathing, coughing and now panting? *sigh*
 richard tindal:the survey monkey might be the heavy breather
 Keith Drazek:can the moderators mute that line?
 Paul Diaz:I think the survey monkey has been beaten senseless
 ken stubbs:+1 tim
 Antony Van Couvering:+1 tim
 volker greimann:verisigns  position sounded very close to jn2 btw
 Antony Van Couvering:I think it's clear that there isn't general agreemen on 
very much at all
 Michele Neylon:Verisign's position was surprising - but like Volker said
 ken stubbs:survey monkey is going to appear this saturday night in a WWF 
"smackdown"
 Michele Neylon:Volker - next time I'll just get you to complete the poll for 
me :)
 volker greimann:i presiously hear that they would remain neurral on this 
issue, so i welcomed the change
 Michele Neylon:Volker - well it was noticed - I got an email from a journo 
about it 
 volker greimann:nice
 Michele Neylon:So Keith is making his mark /me waves at Keith
 ken stubbs:jeff +1
 CLO:ON sec 4 I agree  that 1 call was WAY off "evaluation"  and I was left 
with more questions than answers...
Jon Nevett:in section 2.2, let's keep to one acronym -- we don't need DAGv4 to 
morph into AGBv4 
 ken stubbs:+1
 Antony Van Couvering:Wasn't this report debated on the list?
 Keith Drazek:@volker and michele, thanks for the feedback!
 volker greimann:keith, thank you for the paper. i really appreciated your 
coments
 volker greimann:comments
 milton:what is your problem with the Salop Wright, Jeff?
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:can you clarify the question
 Antony Van Couvering:Mikey - my "X" means I disagree with Jeff
 Ron A:Yes, please clarify 
 Jothan Frakes:All due respect to Keith, but Re the Verisign position -- not to 
be a conspiracy theorist but when they take a position on something is it in 
the interests of competition against COM?
 milton:Jeff N, not Jeff E
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Please let Mikey ask the question
 Michele Neylon:What was Jeff's statement?
 milton:aw, Kathy, I thought we agreed for a second there ;=)
 Kathy Kleiman:sorry to disappoint you, Milton!
 milton:I am reminded of the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys 
in our discussion of S&L
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:I am still unsure. have not had a chance to read the full 
report
 Kristina Rosette:not voting.  just getting online for the first time in 
several days and haven't even read the report yet
 Keith Drazek:kristina, how was the cruise?
 Sébastien:Taht a concensuse ;)
 Kathy Kleiman:but did you see my comment in the list?  I don't think that they 
took into account some of our (VI WG/GNSO) principles
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:will send in my vote via email
 richard tindal:crikey    we had consensus on something
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:The report has already been published by ICANN,  Why do 
we need to summarize it?
 CLO:Yep  drop the section
 volker greimann:tom+1
 Phil Buckingham:Tom +1
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:@tindal i think we can have consensus on another item - never 
using the word crikey again
 milton:We don't have consensus, we have a preponderance
 Roberto:Proposal: The economist view, now in Section 4, can go as attachment, 
like the different proposals from WG members
 richard tindal:strewth?
 richard tindal:a crikey like term
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:and no mroe heavy breathing
 Ron A:@ Roberto: I can live with that.
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:more
 Antony Van Couvering:I'm ok with that Jeff, but I think is not true that we 
didn't discuss it.  We did.
 Kathy Kleiman:If we can, then, I would like to include  a few concerns of our 
concerns re: S&W reports (and Milton's support, if he would like)
 volker greimann:those concerns were not general or was there consensus on 
these concerns?
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:so when is deadline for comments? GMT?
 CLO:The more we do now on the report the better
 Antony Van Couvering:I think that another call is not necessary
 Antony Van Couvering:I think that now we have a document, we can edit
 Tim Ruiz:PIR also had a study done by an economist. I just want to make sure 
that we do not give the impression that any of our work or conclusions are 
based on any of these studies. 
 CLO:Do the call at the same time as the MOnday call
 Michele Neylon:which day?
 amadeu Abril i Abril:two checkmarks, wow....
 Michele Neylon:totally confused at this stage
 CLO:tomorrow
 CLO:your Fri my Sat
 ken stubbs:agree
 Tim Ruiz:What are we doing?
 Michele Neylon:CLO - thanks - I get confused
 Jon Nevett:i'm in the air -- sorry
 Jothan Frakes:help me understand the vote
 ken stubbs:pollin on a call tmrow
 Antony Van Couvering:I have another appt, sorry
 Michele Neylon:I should be on the way to a wedding ... though I'm not going :)
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Michele - are you a runaway bride
 Keith Drazek:we should keep it to the list
 Roberto:@Michele: Yours?
 Jon Nevett:it's all about the cookies
 Jothan Frakes:mmmm cookies
 Michele Neylon:Jeff E - down boy
 Roberto:@Michele: Yours?
 Michele Neylon:Roberto - If I could find a woman dumb enough .. 
 Berry Cobb:CLO's suggestion.  Same time as Monday call.
 J.C. Vignes:+1 for same time Monday, it's almost a routine by now... 
 Kathy Kleiman:cookies aside, @volker there were various concerns raised to the 
Salop & Wright report, and that would seem to be the reason to raise it in our 
report. A few bullet points would be fine.
 Marika Konings:You'll find the doodle poll here: 
http://www.doodle.com/mpm8qsstpkw4nu7f
 Jothan Frakes:Nicely done Marika
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:the concerns that individuals have about S&W should be 
included in public comments, not in the initial report 
 Paul Diaz:Will this be a 60 or 120 minute call?
 Kathy Kleiman:@ Paul, I had the same question!!
 Roberto:I assume we can keep it short, but we can see this at the end of this 
call, depending on what people think of the status of the report as is now
 Michele Neylon:Marika - you r0ck - as usual
 Marika Konings::-)
 Sivasubramanian M:60 min
 CLO:Ken where in sec 5.3 does the word 'special' appear?  Sorry I just can't 
find it so parra and line please?  I need context
 Antony Van Couvering:It means that I need some lunch
 Tim Ruiz:@Michele +1
 ken stubbs:clo.. in the section title
 CLO:Ahh I was looking to body text  =>  yes  just deleating that word would 
work fine IMO
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Jeff N
 volker greimann:them is fightin` words
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:Let's take a poll
 CLO:Yes I agree  we want to SUPPORT  Complaince
 Michele Neylon:Compliance need support and resources
 CLO:and resorce them 
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:and they may need a hug
 Michele Neylon:the wording that was just read is not something I would support
 ken stubbs:also needs an "attitude check" 
 CLO:and some more staff
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:SRSU is an exception...just like the 15% rule is an 
exception
 Antony Van Couvering:Should be an exception
 volker greimann:the rule is 100% then 
 Kathy Kleiman:It is a very different type of exception.
 Kathy Kleiman:I think that the Exceptions took one type of exception, and the 
SRSU took another.
 CLO:I'm OK with SRSU being bundeled with exception section though Kathy as 
long as it's a sub section
 Kathy Kleiman:I really like them separate because I think it calls it out for 
separate review.
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Mikey
 milton:Did you discuss utilization of the poll results in the report yet? 
 Ron A:Speaking of resources, do we now need a new head of compliance now that 
David has left?
 volker greimann:btw: anyone know what happened with david giza?
 jeff neuman:Volker - a good question to ask ICANN; but he is no longer 
there....that is all that is known
 Ron A:@ Dan H: This WG would be grateful as to what happened to a key 
component of the rollout -- the head of compliance?
 Ron A:Grateful 'to know'
 milton:Ken, good points but aren't you talking implementation details rather 
than policy? 
 Keith Drazek:re david, my guess is that icann senior management was upset with 
people quoting him as saying he didn't have enough resources, got his staff 
head count cut, etc. but that's just my guess
 richard tindal:tim - could u speak up a little
 Antony Van Couvering:I reget that I must drop off, but (argh) I will listen to 
the MP3.  Thanks Mikey and everyone. 
 ken stubbs:to use a current tragedyas an example,  you cant give permission to 
drill without some sort of indication as to how it is implemented
 Jothan Frakes:how do you spell filibuster?
 ken stubbs:maybe giza just told the truth & powers that be didn't like it 
going public
 Roberto:@Ken: telling the truth is always dangerous
 ken stubbs:especially in an "open & transparent" organization ?
 CLO:*sigh*
 Roberto:@ken: like IAEA? :<(
 Jothan Frakes:It is an Exceptional report
 Jothan Frakes:Margie does Exceptional work
 Ron A:VERY frustrating to see a man of his talent pushed out for working with 
the community!
 Kristina Rosette:the ipc SRSU proposal was put forward as an exception to the 
Nairobi resolution
 Jothan Frakes:I feel you on that one Ron
 CLO:INdeed +1 ++++ on that sentiment Z@Ron A
 CLO:Z was a typo
 Michele Neylon:Ron - agreed 
 ken stubbs:may the baseline is the current icann contract limitations ?
 ken stubbs:we have not defined a baseline
 ken stubbs:not necessarily
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:But that presumes that the guidelines will be restrictive
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:that is my point
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:sorry, but that is signalling 
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:that the future guidelines will be restrictive
 volker greimann:i agree with jeff
 Jothan Frakes:did I hear the F word..... FINALIZE???
 volker greimann:i certainly hope the guidelines will not be restrictive due to 
fears of what will happen with these restrictions as well
 milton:why are we ignoring the queue?
 volker greimann:but we CAN say that in case they will be restrictive, then we 
suggest the following exeptions, i.e. NIYOTLD, SRSU, COMTLD
 ken stubbs:not the case jeff.. the final guidelines may not even require 
exceptions
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Tim
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:That was just a suggestion. Nairobi is fine
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Disagree with that Mikey
 volker greimann:no it is not, jeff +-)
 Ron A:ca. 66% opposed DAGv4; 28 % could live with in the poll...
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Jeff just stated my point
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:since Free Trade could be decided
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:then exceptions are not needed
 volker greimann:if you do not like the results, hiding it is the logical choice
 Ron A:Mischaracterization Milton.  No one here has said anything about hiding 
the poll.  Many have said that they are not scientific in any way
 Tim Ruiz:No one suggested we hide them. In fact, they are already public. The 
concerns are on how they are characterized and/or explained.
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:I have no problem showing how each of us responded to 
the poll.  However a "tally" is menaingless.
 ken stubbs:need to respond to milton if we are opening up the polls again
 Tim Ruiz:@Ron +1 and they only reflect the response of less than half the WG 
members.
 Jothan Frakes:The poll results are public...  The use of the word "Hiding" was 
apparently meant to evoke reaction
 Ron A:Also, I feel it necessary to note that at least four people who are 
active on this list have not had their votes included -- so this poll is 
incomplete at best
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:@Ron A  - I agree we need to wait till everyone responds
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@Mikey.  You can publish the spreadsheet of how everyone 
responded...with names redacted.  But trying to summarize the results is not a 
meaningful exercise.
 Sivasubramanian M:My line dropped, what was it that Milton was sayihng about 
compliance?
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:and have their votes counted
 richard tindal:lets not quote poll numbers till we see results for those who 
havent voted yet
 Jothan Frakes:+1 richard, that seems fair
 Tim Ruiz:Depends on what each of our problems are with DAGv4. If it has a 
higher percentage I just might support it.
 Ron A:+ 1 Richard and Jeff E
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:Mikey..the poll is not a good tool for conducting this 
type of exercise.  We need to use a survey tool that supports conjoint analysis
 Phil Buckingham:Who is allowed to vote - those who orginally sent in a SOI - 
even if they no longer participate on these callls ??? 
 volker greimann:that is not an argument. we have many lurkers
 Michele Neylon:there are always going to be lurkers
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:So is the complaint that there was not enough time to campaign 
for votes? 
 Michele Neylon:why the hell are we still talking about the damn poll?
 volker greimann:yes, but we should not discredit those results because lurkers 
did not vote
 CLO:I was not casual with any of the polls
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Please do not assume people were casual
 Jothan Frakes:o m g
 CLO:*silent scream from me*
 Tim Ruiz:Just because they are not calls does not mean they are not monitoring 
the list or listening to the recordings. They may even have reviewed the poll 
but have no opinion on any  of it. Does mean they don't count?
 jeff neuman:The only thing that I would like to say about the poll is I did it 
in my individual capacity and it does not represent the views of Neustar 
(necessarily)
 Michele Neylon:Oh help
Michele Neylon:I did the damn poll
 Michele Neylon:a lot of people did
 jeff neuman::)
 CLO:arghhhh
 jeff neuman:I stand behind the answers i gave....
 Michele Neylon:why is the damn poll such a big deal?
 Michele Neylon:who cares
 CLO:me too 
 Michele Neylon:christ
 CLO:stand behoind my answers
 Michele Neylon:it's 6am for Cheryl
 Brian Cute:let's take an ad hoc poll on whether we should do another poll...
 Michele Neylon:1040 pm for Volker
 Michele Neylon:and one hour earlier for me
 CLO:now Brian ;-)
 volker greimann:next topic please....
 Michele Neylon:please - can we move on 
 J.C. Vignes:Let's move on... 
 Michele Neylon:this is boring the life out of me
 Michele Neylon:I can't take any more of this discussion
 Michele Neylon:can we all agree that some people don't like the poll
 Brian Cute:I propose we move on
 CLO:Well I preferred  the BRU  outcomes  to what WAS  "proposals Ken
 Ron A:@ Michele: The reason is that the poll is distorted information which 
confused so many of us, in various camps, so how can we put those forward as 
work products?
 Michele Neylon:and move on
 Paul Diaz:agree, all this talk about the poll results is wasting our limited 
time
 Keith Drazek:the poll was successful in showing we have no consensus, let's 
move on
 Michele Neylon:Ron - we need to move on
 ken stubbs:+1 keith
 Tim Ruiz:@Brian, I don't know. Maybe we should do a poll on whether we need to 
poll about the poll.
 Ron A:Agreed.  Once we are on the same page on this one...
 Kristina Rosette:If the poll results are going to be included, would it be 
possible to re-open it so I can participate?
 J.C. Vignes:Kathy: two weeks "away" too, I share your pain! 
 Ron A:Still open Kristina.  
 J.C. Vignes:oops, sorry, Kristina, not Kathy
 Michele Neylon:Kristina - it's still open AFAIK
 Tim Ruiz:@Keith +1
 Kristina Rosette:@JC:  no worries. scary thing is that it was only 4 working 
days.
 Roberto:@Kristina: it is still open
 jeff neuman:I think we should have a VI WG Cruise....stick us on a boat in the 
middle of an ocean and dont let us off until we reach consensus
 jeff neuman:or jump
 Brian Cute:it is a bit of a conundrum but there is no consensus on attaching 
it to a particular baseline
 Michele Neylon:Jeff - can Aflias and Neustar pay for it?
 J.C. Vignes:@Kristina: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Initial-report-poll
 Ron A:Better make plans for a long cruise... ;o)
 Keith Drazek:i'd hope for pirates
 Michele Neylon:if there was more alcohol involved we might actually reach 
agreement
 Michele Neylon:though I still like the idea of Uzis
 jeff neuman:Michele - since death is a scary concept, perhaps paintball match
 volker greimann:ok, lets meet up in belgium again drink and reach consensus
 volker greimann:booze and chocolate
 Tim Ruiz:With green and orange paintballs.
 Michele Neylon:Volker - my body has only just recovered from Brussels
 Jothan Frakes:tim we used green dots in belgium :)
 Ron A:13 @ 10:00 est
 Brian Cute:Let's poll a Doodle
 Tim Ruiz::)
 Michele Neylon:UTC = sanity for me
 Michele Neylon:I like UTC
 J.C. Vignes:Isn't tomorrow too soon? What about Monday?
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Actually Brian I think we ddodle the poll
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:doodle
 Jothan Frakes:this meeting was at 19:00 today
 Brian Cute:lol
 Ron A:@ JC: we have to produce a final doc tomorrow
 Jothan Frakes:5 hours earlier than it was today
 Jothan Frakes:I am good with that
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:the west coasters need our beauty sleep
 Michele Neylon:If CLO can make the call then everyone else can
 Jothan Frakes:speak for yourself mr jefferson
 J.C. Vignes:Michele +1
 J.C. Vignes:Let's use any wiggle room we have, it should not be "rushed"
 Ron A:@ JC: Agreed!
 Tim Ruiz:Watching Obama breaking news conference on mute. I really like him 
like that.
 jeff neuman:Quick - A poll on the Grid
 jeff neuman:Nothing new please
 Tim Ruiz:I am unkeen to that idea also.
 Jon Nevett:Easy Tim
 ken stubbs:put atoms in an accelerator at lawrence livermore or cern
 Tim Ruiz:anything new please allow 3-5 days for review and comment.
 Keith Drazek:the original matrix couild be included as an addendum to show the 
historical work of the WG
 ken stubbs:+1
 Jothan Frakes:We need a hadron collider for this
 Marika Konings:Margie will post all the annexes on the wiki later today so 
everyone can review
 Tim Ruiz:Agree with Brian, and Keith.
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Original Matrix was good. But remember déjà vu is usually a 
glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something. 
 Keith Drazek:i don't agree with dropping BRU1 and BRU2, they were arrived at 
differently but still constitute work of the WG
 J.C. Vignes:Jeff E: LOL! Comic relief? 
 jeff neuman:Keith +1
 volker greimann:agree with keith even if i do not agree with bru1, bru2
 CLO:Report on the work at BRU  woth BRU1 & @  seperate to thegrid then  but 
the BRU work was worthy and VALID and has more support from me than some of the 
"proposals"
 Jothan Frakes:+1 jeff e
 CLO:BRU1 & 2
 Brian Cute:was doing the poll at 1:30p.m. today and my browser crapped out.  
 CLO:I only ever gave better of a not perfected  conditional support for any of 
the proposals
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:I am really against supressing or not including any major work 
by this group. That includes poll (when complete) and BRU1 and BRU2
 Keith Drazek:+1 jeff e
 CLO:+1 Jeffrey
 milton:Can you just send the spreadsheet results to the list? 
 milton:Others can process the data
 J.C. Vignes:+1 Jeff E
 Brian Cute:we're in "poll"ar opposite camps
 jeff neuman:Ken - we cant hear you :)
 Michele Neylon:Brian gets bonus points for that one
 Jothan Frakes:+1 ken, praise Mikey and Roberto.
 Brian Cute:+2 Keb
 Brian Cute:Ken
 CLO:INDEED  huge and well done job by the Co Chairs
 Ron A:+1 Ken
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:that was me
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:awesome
 Phil Buckingham:Ken +1
 Tim Ruiz:Ken +1
 volker greimann:mikey is awesome+1
 Paul Diaz:kudos to the co-chairs for all of their hard work
 Jothan Frakes:Mikey has high Awesemosity
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Mikey one of my favorite quotes for you - It's easy to grin / 
When your ship comes in / And you've got the stock market beat. / But the man 
worthwhile, / Is the man who can smile, / When his shorts are too tight in the 
seat. 
 CLO:I support Jeff on this matter of compiance work from BRU
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:movie quotes
 ken stubbs:+1 jeffrey
 CLO:Works for me Mikey as I already said that IN this CHat
 Scott Austin:works for me mikey
 Ron A:I can live with that as well
 Tim Ruiz:Sounds much better Micky.
 Tim Ruiz:I need a tea (an Irish tea that is).
 milton:ciao, all.
 Tim Ruiz:Thanks Mikey.
 Sivasubramanian M:bye, all
 Brian Cute:Thanks Mikey and Roberto!
 CLO:Thanks Mikey talk to most of you tomorrow then (my Sat midnight) :)
 Ron A:'See" you all tomorrow morning....
 Jothan Frakes:1-900-mikey
 Roberto:Bye
 Michele Neylon:we should all call Mikey
 Tim Ruiz:,,, abd Riberto.
 volker greimann:1-800-awesum1
 J.C. Vignes:Bye all!
 Michele Neylon:ROFL
 Michele Neylon:now to cook
- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)