Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and Principles-summaries

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

hi Jeff,

i can't really tell you who's on each team, but here's a list of "gateway" type 
people that should be able to draw you into the respective gangs.

Exceptions -- Tim R

Compliance -- Brian C

SRSU -- Kristina


BRU1 -- Richard T

BRU2 -- Keith D


FreeTrade -- Berry C

JN2 -- i dunno, some guy named Jeff

RACK+ -- Brian C

IPC -- Kristina R

CAM -- Avri/Milton


DAGv4 -- above my paygrade
On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> Can you please let us know which drafting teams there are?  I am confused and 
> I don't know which one of them I am on (if any).....although I would like to 
> contribute.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:14 PM
> To: Richard Tindal
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and 
> Principles-summaries
> 
> 
> i'm going to hijack this thread, since Richard's already kicked it off.  :-)
> 
> we agreed on the call today that it would be very useful to have short 
> summaries of each of the proposals and each of the Principles for the body of 
> the report.  we diverged a bit on what those should look like and wanted to 
> take the conversation to the list for resolution.
> 
> here are the parameters of the debate;
> 
> -- how long -- a certain number of words?  if so, how many -- 200?
> 
> -- should those summaries describe levels of support, or leave that out?  
> that's the point that Richard raised with his email
> 
> -- anything else we should state in advance as guidance to summary-drafters?
> 
> let's try to hammer this one out fairly quickly so drafting-teams can get 
> started with their summarizing.
> 
> hope you don't mind me hijacking your thread Richard,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Wanted to amplify the point i made on the call today
>> 
>> Executive summaries can be very powerful things as many will just read that 
>> portion of the document.  
>> 
>> Given this,  I don't think the summaries we provide for each of our 
>> proposals should include any words about the level of support or endorsement 
>> for our proposals.  
>> 
>> Kristina - I understand the response you made to this, but i just don't 
>> think we'll get agreement on how support should be characterized.  I think 
>> we'll get into protracted and unsolvable debate over adjectives like 'some', 
>> 'many', 'good', 'broad', 'strong'  etc.  Even a seemingly benign statement 
>> like 'there was support from xyz' is going to be debated as support for one 
>> piece of a proposal doesnt necessarily mean support for all pieces.
>> 
>> My strong preference is to leave such descriptions of support  out of the 
>> proposal description.
>> 
>> RT
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> 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.)