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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support your recommendation, Richard.

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 4:05 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: draft Report

 

So we're discussing:

 

Exec Summary:    Explains there were multiple proposals and names them

 

Section 6:    Provides a 200 word bullet-point description of each proposal
-- but only its features, not its perceived pros and cons

 

Attachments ---   Contains the source documents for each proposal.  These
are the documents that were written and submitted during the course of the
WG -- but no edits or additions to these documents.

 

 

All -- Do we have consensus on that approach to the report?

 

RT

 

 

 

On Jul 18, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:





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.)