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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This has my support. 

RA 

________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:55:02 
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: "Rules" for proposal-summaries and 
Principles-summaries

Re the Exec Summary for each proposal

My recommendation is:

About 250 word limit = 1/2 page 
bullet form  (or narrrative) -  but let's make them all the same
purely factual statements of the proposal's features  (e.g.  "treats registry 
service providers like registries",  "places no cross ownership limits of 
registries or registrars", "has exemption for SRSU which is defined at.....") 
no supportive statements or claimed benefits e.g.  "this is in the public 
interest because......",  "the advantage of this approach is....",  "this will 
prevent harms..",  etc

I think that's the best way for us to get agreement on these statements.   

The full proposals will be easily referenced for those who want to read the 
details/ benefits.

RT


On Jul 16, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 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.)
>