ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: draft Report
  • From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:52:21 -0400

That sounds right to me. One comment below

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

Also points to the poll results regarding levels of support. (No attempt to 
summarize the poll)

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>
[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<mailto: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<mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://infinityportals.com
866.921.8891


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://infinityportals.com
866.921.8891

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 11:27 am
To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>, "Richard Tindal"
<richardtindal@xxxxxx<mailto:richardtindal@xxxxxx>>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
[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<mailto: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.)





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy