RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: draft Report

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

For the record, I was also thinking in terms of having the summaries in
Section 6. The exec summary should not have that level of details.
R.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2010 18:33
> To: Richard Tindal
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: draft Report
> 
> 
> hum...
> 
> i was thinking along Berry's lines, that the short summaries 
> were aimed at Section 6 rather than the Exec Summary.  i 
> agree -- summarizing the debate over those proposals in any 
> kind of neutral way is a monumental task.  it goes on the 
> "too hard" pile in my view.  so my thought would be that 
> Section 6 has the short summaries that y'all are preparing, 
> the Exec Summary merely notes that there *were* a number of proposals.
> 
> i'm also OK with a Section 6 that is 5 - 10 pages long (250 
> to 500 words for each proposal).  it's one of our major 
> work-products and worthy of the space.
> 
> not a strongly held view, but my two cents.
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Jul 18, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I meant the Exec Summary,  but I think we have the same 
> problem with Section 6.
> > 
> > As I understand it,  Section 6 is intended to reflect the 
> to and fro debate on each proposal over the last three 
> months.  The advantages and support claimed by its advocates, 
>  the disadvantages and opposition claimed by its critics,  
> the nature of discussion in the group,   etc.    Presumably 
> there would be one per two pages per proposal -- so probably 
> a 10 to 20 page Section.
> > 
> > If the advocates of each proposal  are writing these 
> sections I think its going to be very difficult for them to 
> not slant the record in their favor.   If I'm the writer for 
> BRU1, for example,  I can use differing emphasis,  omissions 
> of detail,  and simply the nuance of words to give the report 
> reader a more favorable view of my proposal.   Even with good 
> faith on my part, my recollection of the BRU1 debate is going 
> to be different from others in the group.
> > 
> > Given the difficulty I perceive in writing Section 6,  and 
> the clear absence of consensus on any proposal,  I'm 
> wondering about the value of this section.
> > 
> > If we feel we must have the section, I'm wondering if 
> there's a more objective way to produce it than have proposal 
> advocates create the draft.
> > 
> > Comments welcome on this.
> > 
> > RT
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 16, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Correct me if I am wrong, I thought these 250 or 500 word 
> summaries 
> >> were going in to section 6, and just high-level mention of the 
> >> proposals in the Executive Summary.
> >> 
> >> If not, then yes, I would support a 250 word limit for the 
> executive 
> >> summary.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Berry Cobb
> >> Infinity Portals LLC
> >> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://infinityportals.com
> >> 866.921.8891
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> >> On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> >> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:57 AM
> >> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and 
> >> Principles-summaries
> >> 
> >> 
> >> berry
> >> 
> >> i could live with 500 words,  but that's a page each (i 
> think) , so 
> >> we'd have 11 pages of proposals description in the Exec Summary
> >> 
> >> i think for readability it'll be better to have 250 or 
> less words per 
> >> proposal
> >> 
> >> maybe even better as bullets for each
> >> 
> >> R
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Jul 16, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Berry Cobb wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> I support 500 words in a narrative.  The bullets are 
> really another 
> >>> form within the Matrix.
> >>> 
> >>> The summaries should not include levels of support.  That can be 
> >>> found in the polling results and left for the reader to interpret.
> >>> 
> >>> I will take point for the Free-Trade summary and submit to those
> >> proponents
> >>> for review.
> >>> 
> >>> What I have not seen yet, when is the deadline for the 
> proposal summaries?
> >>> 
> >>> Thx, B
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Berry Cobb
> >>> Infinity Portals LLC
> >>> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> http://infinityportals.com
> >>> 866.921.8891
> >>> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> >>> On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> >>> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 10:02 AM
> >>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and 
> >>> Principles-summaries
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> bullets are fine too
> >>> 
> >>> but if we go with narrative I do like the idea of a word limit
> >>> 
> >>> 500 nicely framed words about a proposal can give that 
> proposal more 
> >>> mindshare that 250 nicely framed words about another proposal
> >>> 
> >>> RT
> >>> 
> >>> On Jul 16, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> They would all just say no consensus. We can sum that up else 
> >>>> where, can't we?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I thought the suggestion was for *summaries* and I 
> support that. I 
> >>>> don't think we should have to put a word limit on it. 
> Just require 
> >>>> them to be a bullet list of what is proposed, period. 
> Leave out any 
> >>>> narrative about justifications, background, or level of support. 
> >>>> All of that is covered elsewhere. There can be reference to the 
> >>>> appropriate annex of the full proposals.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Why does it have it be any more complicated than that? Anything 
> >>>> else will just create more endless debate.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Tim
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] "Rules" for proposal-summaries and 
> >>>> Principles-summaries
> >>>> From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 11:27 am
> >>>> To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard Tindal"
> >>>> <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
> >>>> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> I think the "level of support" descriptor should be 
> >>>> binary...consensus or no consensus.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Regards, Keith
> >>>> 
> >>>> -----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.)
>