[gnso-vi-feb10] Chat transcript from today's call
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Chat transcript from today's call
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:15:19 -0500
here's the chat transcript from the call today...
Antony Van Couvering:Hi everyone
Antony Van Couvering:Anyone there?
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
Jothan Frakes:(sorry, off-topic) those of you offering registry services
please let applicants know about it through my survey
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Michele Neylon:and discussing the merits of the poll to death doesn't help
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Michele Neylon:Volker - next time I'll just get you to complete the poll for
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
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
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
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
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
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:a crikey like term
Jeffrey Eckhaus:and no mroe heavy breathing
Ron A:@ Roberto: I can live with that.
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
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:your Fri my Sat
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
Jon Nevett:it's all about the cookies
Jothan Frakes:mmmm cookies
Michele Neylon:Jeff E - down boy
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:
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
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
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
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
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
Roberto:@Ken: telling the truth is always dangerous
ken stubbs:especially in an "open & transparent" organization ?
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
Kristina Rosette:the ipc SRSU proposal was put forward as an exception to the
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
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
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
Sivasubramanian M:My line dropped, what was it that Milton was sayihng about
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
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
Michele Neylon:Oh help
Michele Neylon:I did the damn poll
Michele Neylon:a lot of people did
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: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
Michele Neylon:and move on
Paul Diaz:agree, all this talk about the poll results is wasting our limited
Keith Drazek:the poll was successful in showing we have no consensus, let's
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
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
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
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
Jothan Frakes:this meeting was at 19:00 today
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
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
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
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
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
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
CLO:INDEED huge and well done job by the Co Chairs
Ron A:+1 Ken
Jeffrey Eckhaus:that was me
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
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).
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....
Michele Neylon:we should all call Mikey
Tim Ruiz:,,, abd Riberto.
J.C. Vignes:Bye all!
Michele Neylon:now to cook
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)