ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


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

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms" - UPDATE!!!

  • To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms" - UPDATE!!!
  • From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:15:41 -0700

All,

I have taken Milton's advice here and have begun working on a comprehensive 
list of harms, similar to what KK did with her matrix. This list is being put 
together from comments, correspondence, presentations and other info I can find 
from the beginning of the discussions on VI.

This list will be unedited and will include as much information as I can find. 
I would like to complete this list in the next 24 hours and submit to the full 
WG for review.  Please hold off on sending me any specific harms until after I 
have submitted it to the WG.

Once I send this out, I would also ask if we could follow our co-chair 
Roberto's advice and consider this brainstorming and just work on adding to the 
list, not if the harm is valid or not, or has anything to do with VI. Rest 
assured there will be plenty of time to have those discussions.

Thanks

Jeff Eckhaus

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:35 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms" - UPDATE!!!

I think such a subgroup could be "unoffial" e.g. in the way that Kathy Kleiman 
went ahead and developed a matrix and submitted it to us. Any one of us, or a 
small cluster, could do what you propose here:

> -----Original Message-----
>
> My vote is for a sub-group to work on it first because I am afraid
> that each email that goes out discussing a topic will be subject to
> 50+ editors and snipers, advocates, detractors....... and we will end
> up nowhere. I assume that the co-chairs are the ones to make the final
> decision, but as the proposer of this idea, my vote is for the
> sub-group and then bring it to the main WG for review after each
> iteration of the document, not waiting for a final edition to send for
> review. FYI - I believe there about 10-12 people who asked to be on
> this sub-group so far, so it will be well represented.
>

Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.




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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy