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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I support Richard's recommendations.

Stéphane

Le 16 juil. 2010 à 20:55, Richard Tindal a écrit :

> 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.)
>> 
>