[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from the call today

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

hi all,

here's the chat transcript from the call today

mikey



 Jothan Frakes:mikey uses 72 point font
 Ron A:look for this latest draft in the "Current Draft" 
slot;https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots
 Gaetano:The phone line is pretty bad. Is it just me?
 Volker Greimann:i hear the hummmmmmmm too
 Berry Cobb:Can any action even be takin on an "Initial Report", vs waiting 
until the final conclusions in the "Final Report"?
 Berry Cobb:per bylaws, etc...
 richard tindal:well siad tim
 jeff neuman:I completely support Tim's comments - I was not even commenting on 
the right version .... ugh
 Ron A:@ Tim +1
 Brian Cute:@ Tim +1
 Jothan Frakes:+1 Tim
 Volker Greimann:good argument, but -1 because many people will only look at 
the doc once+
 Kristina Rosette:Agree with Tim, too. Also note that the current bylaws allow 
the GNSO Council to "solicit the opinions of outside advisors at its final 
meeting".  I asked in Brussels for clarification of that provision and haven't 
had a chance to focus on the answer I've gotten, but I do want to flag it.
 jeff neuman:Why are we talking about the COuncil here?  The Council does not 
act until AFTER the final report
 jeff neuman:not the initial report
 jeff neuman:But Kristina is right, public comment does need to be on all of 
the substantive recommendations
 Scott Austin:@ margi +1 @Kathy +1
 Volker Greimann:kathy+1
 Paul Diaz:for the benefit of the WG, please go over the near-term schedule 
again
 Brian Cute:thanks Mikdy
 Kristina Rosette:If the WG is going to read the public comments and 
consider/make changes, I strongly recommend that folks who plan to read them do 
so on a rolling basis. Otherwise, it may be too much to read in 48 hours.
 jeff neuman:IGF
 Kristina Rosette:. . . . based on my experience trying to read all of the 
comments on the draft IRT report.  Did it, but it got ugly.
 jeff neuman:Kristina - you actually read the comments ?????  Just 
kidding.....That was a tough timeline too
 Kristina Rosette:yes.  Actually, I also read them for everything the Council 
votes on.  
 Volker Greimann:btw: do we need to reiterate the IPC position fully in our 
report? just saying that we took note of it would suffice, i think
 Volker Greimann:ipc position on SRSU, that is
 jeff neuman:Volker - I agree.  even if we do not use the poll per se, the 
results in the poll indicate something like 33 people of the 35 opposed the IPC 
proposal
 jeff neuman:But
 jeff neuman:the concept of SRSU needs to be explained
 jeff neuman:minues the implementation details
 Volker Greimann:it does, but not in that way
 Volker Greimann:actually it is
 jeff neuman:I submitted revisions this morning to Kristina's text which I hope 
we will discuss
 Kristina Rosette:I didn't listen to Monday's recording so if it's there, 
apologies. Why doesn't the body of the report even list the proposals in 
Section 6?  I find it very strange that we're going to ask people to flip back 
100+ pages to see even a 1-paragraph description.
 Kathy Kleiman:When did SRSU become SRMU (in our report)?
 Ron A:Agreed, Volker.  That section of the report has to be cut back 
significantly -- and no SRMU or other such issues
 Volker Greimann:5.3 until the section titled ipc-proposed .brand models
 jeff neuman:Kathy - See my proposed revisions
 Ron A:The only issue is SRSU and that is an exception, NOT a new moniker for a 
specific 
 Ron A:TLD
 Kristina Rosette:@Kathy - and my comments on Jeff's.  I'm still waiting for 
additional comments/suggestions/criteria
 jeff neuman:Ron A - I submitted proposed revisions
 Ron A:I glanced at them Jeff, but they still contain more than SRSU
 Volker Greimann:indeed. even the concept of expressions must be detailed re: 
what it means or does not mean
 jeff neuman:@ Ron - INitially some did bring up (and I think Tindal did at one 
point) the different versions
 jeff neuman:But I agree that we should only focus on SRSU
 Ron A:5 hours to look at it?  Are you in Europe, Ken? ;o)
 ken stubbs:7 days is , i think, fair...
 Volker Greimann:sounds to be enough
 Brian Cute:that would work
 CLO:Week is FINE as long as it STOPS changeing!!!!
 Kathy Kleiman:if we freeze and work off of it.
 Brian Cute:that includes working all weekend, right?
 Kathy Kleiman:agree with CLO!
 CLO:doewsn't everything work 24 x 7 364 Brian :?
 ken stubbs:what about the 365th day ?
 Kathy Kleiman:I know who was up at midnight when I was working on the grid...
 jeff neuman:What does it mean to freeze?
 CLO:I need 1 off  I decided Ken :-)
 Brian Cute:can we take a poll on whether 7 days is enough?
 jeff neuman:No new stuff, but I want to get rid of stuff in there
 CLO: it MUST FREEZE  yes Jeff
 CLO:for new stuff
 Jothan Frakes:+1 on freeze, +1 on 7 days
 Brian Cute:+1 on freeze
 CLO:minor edits are of course fine
 Kristina Rosette:I actually think that some new stuff should go in - but not 
about SRSU - about other proposals.  I'll explain when I get a chance to talk.
 Kathy Kleiman:Freeze: looking at, debating, fixing everything that came out in 
the last 48 hours. no new materials otherwise!
 Jothan Frakes:mikey, we'll be criticized regardless, mostlikely
 Volker Greimann:+1 on jeff, freeze, 7days
 CLO:so set a FORM deadline sya + 12 => 24  FOR a FREEZE
 CLO:FORM = FRIM sorry 
 CLO:FIRM *sigh*
 CLO:ben a  L  O  N  G  day sorry team
 Jothan Frakes:mikey, you have donea phenomenal job as cochair, and that draft 
was a monster
 Scott Austin:who has had a life since this has begun?
 CLO:Some of us try to fit in OTHER ICANN work @Scott   CLO says shuddering 
 Ron A:@ Mikey: Stay with the queue please
 jeff neuman:I agree with Kristina
 Kathy Kleiman:I live in the The Matrix
 CLO:I'm OK with some text to support the Proposal  Matrix  info
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Kristina. Set a word or letter limit, and limit the each 
proponent group to that space.
 CLO:@ Kathy :-)
 Brian Cute:since I haven't had time to read this draft, I hadn't noticed that 
the proposals weren't included as attachments?  
 richard tindal:if we're going to have a summary of each proposal lets set a 
word limit -- so they all get equal airtime
 Gaetano:Can we agree on having a drop dead time for "new stuff in the report", 
like 24h or 48h from now, and another drop dead time for substantial changes 
(something like 00:00 UTC Wednesday) and have the residual time only for fine 
tuning, no substantial changes?
 Ron A:@ Richard +1
 ken stubbs:+1
 Ron A:The proposals are included Brian
 CLO:+1 Rpberto YES   P  L  E  A  S  E  !!!
 Kristina Rosette:@Brian - they are as attachments, but they're in the second 
to last annex.  there really should be a very short summary of each so folks 
can now what they are considering.
 ken stubbs:roberto +1
 Kristina Rosette:@richard - fine with word limit
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Roberto, but first period should include one business day - 
so COB Monday.
 ken stubbs:word limit is good..
 Eric Brunner-Williams:i have a proposed executive summary para
 CLO:agree to word limit
 CLO:and Exec para
 ken stubbs:step out robertro & make this suggestion
 Kristina Rosette:Part of the reason the SRSU section is so detailed is that I 
assumed (clearly incorrectly) that there was a summary of each proposal within 
the body of the report.  Any word limit would apply to my section, too
 Eric Brunner-Williams:Proposed text at line 62 (new paragraph between the 
existing paras 2 and 3):The primary issues before the VI Working group are the 
risks and benefits of adopting a general structural separation approach, with 
specific functional separation as an alternative, or adopting a general 
structural integration approach, and as a closely related issue, the risks and 
benefits of the compliance regimes appropriate to each of these approaches.End 
of proposed text. 
 Margie Milam:Thanks Eric!
 Brian Cute:weren't the proposals put forward as separate word documents?  why 
couldn't they be attached?
 Margie Milam:Brian-  formatting issues
 CLO:@ Ron YES I agree and made that point as well
 Margie Milam:it makes it really difficult to do that-  its much easier to 
attach it as a picture/preserves the formatting
 Brian Cute:What's the formatting problem?  This would be so much more 
efficient that asking proposers to redraft...
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Ron
 CLO:OK  I'll just RESEND my previous message to the list re the POLL *sigh*
 Ron A:The key Mikey is that we publish the charts not the list of individual 
choices...
 Kristina Rosette:I don't mean that folks should re-draft. Just provide an 
executive summary paragraph that can go in Section 6.
 Tim Ruiz:So we have 1) poll results and how we include them, 2) summaries of 
proposals for section 6, 3) everyone complete a review of the current versiion 
and compile comments. Is there anything else?
 Eric Brunner-Williams:in addition to tim's 1,2,3 there are individual edits 
through out, i've changes to 2, 4 and 5 as well
 richard tindal:Kristina - you're ok with BRU1 version of SRSU also having 
summary in body of report?
 Kristina Rosette:@richard:  I actually think that the BRU1 iteration of SRSU 
should be referenced in the SRSU section
 richard tindal:K -so i'll send u a few sentences on that?
 Kristina Rosette:same for BRU2 and others with SRSU references.  It's my view 
that it makes more sense to include all the SRSU stuff in one section.
 jeff neuman:I just drafted a summary and it is 5 sentences
 Kristina Rosette:@Richard:  I'd prefer that you add them yourself.
 jeff neuman:(of JN2)
 jeff neuman:Short sentences
 Kristina Rosette:if we've got a 131-page report, it seems to me that each 
proposal could have at least a paragraph.  word limit is easier to apply.  200 
words? 150?
 richard tindal:250
 jeff neuman:I got mine down to 150
 CLO:Say 150 +> 200 words I can live with a 50 word padding
 CLO:MAX 200
 Kristina Rosette:I think Mikey should be identified as an author given how 
much he's done. . .
 jeff neuman:I can always add 50 more words :)
 Kristina Rosette:@Jeff:  we know.
 jeff neuman:LOL
 Jothan Frakes:lol
 CLO::-)
 Eric Brunner-Williams:i think amadeu or i can restate the core proposal in 
under 250 words, in english and catalan
 CLO:Re the POLL I've resent my last email/opinion to the list in HUGE text 
 Eric Brunner-Williams:is that for amadeu's benefit?
 Kristina Rosette:I'm going to rewrite SRSU in light of what we've just 
decided.  
 Kristina Rosette:But not today.
 Volker Greimann:I will re-do ORP
 richard tindal:when u say rewrite do you meam any substantive changes - or 
just expression?
 CLO:OK  but with a FIRM freeze dat of ?????
 CLO:date / time
 Kristina Rosette:@richard:  both. if you want to send me BRU1 sentence(s) for 
SRSU by tomorrow night, I'll add them.  Otherwise, it's all you.
 Eric Brunner-Williams:@kristina, can you address the difference between .brand 
and .ngo, it should be clear that .ngo allows more agency by its SLD 
regististrants to "be individual" than does .brand
 Kristina Rosette:@Eric:  I would prefer that one of the  .ngo proponents 
chimes in
 Eric Brunner-Williams:so would i
 Brian Cute:we should establish a day when the document is "locked" for final 
review.  Tuesday or Wednesday would be good.
 Kathy Kleiman:@Kristina, can I ask: who is on the SRSU drafting team?
 CLO:Yes Brian I think we MUST
 CLO:don't care when Mon Tue Wed but DO care that we DO Freeze ? lock it
 Gaetano:@Brian: I hear you. I think it has to be set in the next couple of 
hours, but we need to review the timescale also with staff
 Eric Brunner-Williams:i hope to see "branded" in the .brand srsu proposal, and 
"non-governmental organization" in the .ngo srsu proposal
 Brian Cute:which is different from the freeze date.  first, give people 2/3 
days to "rephrase" which means some additions; second, have 1/2 days for 
everyone to review and support/object to rephrasing; third lock the document 
after that for "polish" editing.
 CLO:if it's 3 pahese that still needs to be fitted into a WEEK
 Eric Brunner-Williams:and as intractible as the questionof caps are, an 
attempt to define caps for .brand and for .ngo, or an alternative control 
mechanism and process
 Brian Cute:yes.  the final edit after locking is for accuracy and grammar only.
 Ron A:+1 Richard
 Gaetano:@Brian: I fear the "additions". to have substantial changes at the 
last minute can wreck the ship. I would not give a long time to people for 
doing this
 CLO:+ 1 Roberto  
 Gaetano:As a SW development manager, I fear the last minute changes on the eve 
of the release date ;>)
 Brian Cute:@Roberto - I agree.  By "additions" I do not mean new subject 
matter or new substance.  Only recognition that in "rephrasing" some pieces, 
one can inadvertently (or intentionally) change the meaning or impact of the 
text.
 Kathy Kleiman:Let me throw it out there: how do people feel about sharing the 
poll aggregate information?
 Brian Cute:The point is, the team will want to review the "rephrased" pieces 
and have an opportunity to comment.
 Brian Cute:Do not support the poll aggregate information.
 Kathy Kleiman:Another poll this week??
 richard tindal:any statements about 'level of support' in Exec Summary will be 
very powerful ---  it will be very hard (impossible?) for us to agree to those 
words
 Brian Cute:Richard +1
 richard tindal:have a nice nap mikey
 ken stubbs:+2
 CLO:A well deserved Nap Mikey  Thanks again
 Gaetano:Bye
 Volker Greimann:i like polls actually
 Volker Greimann:just not talking about their meaning after

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