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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

When I raised the idea of short summaries, I did so with Section 6 in
mind.  Doesn't mean that's where we have to put them, but the absence of
them from that section is what prompted me to raise the issue.

Also, I haven't forgotten the SRSU re-draft.  I'm working through my to
do list and it's nearing the top. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 12:33 PM
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.)