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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+ 1

On Jul 16, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 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.)
>>> 
>> 
>