[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from the call today...
> > > Mike O'Connor:Go easy on me today people -- staff is all at a meeting and > Roberto's not on the call either. So I'll be juggling a lot of stuff today... > avri:today we spoke of both Chickesn and Zebra Finches, coincidentally: "The > Zebra Finch genome was the second bird genome to be sequenced, in 2008, after > that of the chicken" > Berry Cobb:One man wrecking crew! :-) > Eric Brunner-Williams:don't know if the finches taste like chicken, someone > aged 7 may have adverse views on inquiry > avri:need a box for none of the above > avri:but that does not count the votes for none of the above > avri:and does not diferentiate those of just don't vote form those who > decide none of the above. > avri:yeah, i was making my point, not Eric' > Jothan Frakes:someone can pick "none of the above" AND the other options if > it is checkbox :) > Jothan Frakes:It's on us to behave :) > Eric Brunner-Williams:yup > avri:us, behave? > Jothan Frakes:It looks like Christina got it to work > CLO:LOL we can but try > Jothan Frakes:I see a vote for IPC :) > Kathy Kleiman:I'm sorry, I just came on. What are we polling? > Volker Greimann:kathy, we are polling what proposal we think the public > comments support in our view > Volker Greimann:comment by comment > Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late. > Jon N:wasn't there a summary of these comments? > Berry Cobb:Essentially we are tagging comments > Jothan Frakes:ken stubbs > Berry Cobb:his phone works > Jeff Neuman:Ken - Tell us what songs you would like us to sing! > avri:not errors, but outliers. > ken stubbs:sorry.. i thought i was on mute.. > Jothan Frakes:no worries, happens to us all > Alan Greenberg:For those of us who came in late. What comment are we talking > about??? > Berry Cobb:Perhaps we need start the polling at a higher level. > Agree/Disagree with comment stated by stakeholder > Volker Greimann:Numero ono > Volker Greimann:uno > Eric Brunner-Williams:i didn't htink it supported jn2 because that proposal > had a restriction for the firt 18 months > Berry Cobb:then if we need to drill down at the proposal level, we will poll > on that. > Volker Greimann:the very first one ;-) > CLO:Not people but where it can fit > Jeffrey Eckhaus:Yes, I felt that is where those fit > Jothan Frakes:Eric, we have to train you on using 'bullet points' > Jothan Frakes:;) > Jothan Frakes:I could use the training myself > Volker Greimann:is that bullet-training? > Jothan Frakes:you mean the fast trains? > Jothan Frakes:or target practice? > Paul Diaz:agree w/ Kristina. Why are we doing this? > Jon N:To what end? Don't they speak for themselves? > Jothan Frakes:I am ok with us doing this if we have an understanding of how > our poll would be used > Paul Diaz:+1 @ Jeff E and Jon N - the comments speak for themselves > Jothan Frakes:seems like we were trying to simplify the mapping of the > comments against some of the proposals so that it is in the report > Jothan Frakes:in order to reduce the time a person would need to make sense > of the comments > Sivasubramanian M:That should require a form design for comments, and a > space for them to vote for one or more ? proposals, with links to all > proposals in the form itself. Many reponsendts comment without going through > the proposal sin details, and it is difficult to expect them to do a thorugh > exercise > Jothan Frakes:Agree siva, also we have very little participation in this > call so any poll might be better distributed to the VIWG mailing list > CLO:Siva a WG could indeed POLL the community some WG's have > Eric Brunner-Williams:or this comment raised a point not addressed by any > proposal > Sivasubramanian M:Even if repondents vote, how is it right that this WG > takes those votes into avcount? The respondents are not represntative, they > are not statistically drawn from the universe, so to what extent should this > WG give importance as if it is repreesntative opinion? > CLO:the WG couls literallynask for a survey as adjunct to the PC completed... > CLO:EXCELLENT point(s) AG > Sivasubramanian M:CLO, it is ok to poll hte community, but the poll has to > reach ALL members of the community, responses have to be many > Volker Greimann: /me claps > Jon N:Alan +1 > Jeffrey Eckhaus:Good point Alan > Phil Buckingham:Alan ++++1 > Jeffrey Eckhaus:+1 > Volker Greimann:+1 > Berry Cobb:we violate the PDP guidelines right? > Jothan Frakes:I am wondering, now that I have put some thought behind it, if > perhaps we should think in terms of a larger picture here... as Alan's > saying... perhaps we may want to look at the larger picture... we have no > reccomendation to change and the consensus here seems like it is what it is > (n't) > Sivasubramanian M:At best, in the present system of communicty comments, > the comments can be noted for substance, not for representaive opinion > CLO:Siva leading horses to water but... ... ... we (and here I mean all of > us as ICANN Community) can be offered the opportunity to contribute and we > will or won't repond... > Volker Greimann:we have a week? > Alan Greenberg:Just to be clear, if we intend to go forward and try to > propose something for the longer term (since we have missed the deadline for > the 1st round), I would *STRONGLY* support analyzing the comments. > Sivasubramanian M:Agree with you CLO.. That is why we need a balance in our > reaction to public comments. Public comments today come from the same > participative communty members, the same individuals, a very few, a handful, > it is not a thousand commentsw, so we can look for different points of view, > we can consider the opionion, but not take them as representative opinion... > > Sivasubramanian M:On sensitive issues, comments are sometimes rigged > Sivasubramanian M:Lot of judgement is required in alalyzing comments > Sivasubramanian M:We can learn quite a lot from comments, but there are too > few woments to make a table of opinions for and against, and go by the > 'majority' comment > Jothan Frakes:I volunteer to be on KR's team if this happens > Jothan Frakes:if we break into teams like she's proposing > Volker Greimann:you think we will be able to agree on a analysis? > avri:each advocate can do this on their own if they wish. > avri:not to be part of the report but as a seperate contribution. > avri:i.e people who think it is worth taking the time can do so if they wish. > Jon N:This is new idea comment -- > http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/msg00023.html -- think we > could agree on how to divide it up? > Jothan Frakes:now you're talking Jon > Jothan Frakes:I think it WOULD be worthwhile to cover any ground that was > introduced in the comments > Jothan Frakes:right Mikey > Eric Brunner-Williams:ken wants to talk about his song list > Jothan Frakes:I think Jon, we could apply consensus on that comment being > spam from the link you posted > avri:Jothan: I bet we could even find someone to disagree with that. > Jothan Frakes:in this group ??? ;) > Eric Brunner-Williams:public comment, not erratic board comment > CLO:+1 to Erics point > Phil Buckingham:Maybe break down PC into particular areas - ie SRSU , > Orphans etc and how we can move forward to resolve these issues BEFORE round > one > CLO:Worthy to explore IMO @Phil > Jothan Frakes:I have an idea... we've mentioned that we have some > reasonable areas of common ground within the group > Jothan Frakes:like compliance for example > Jothan Frakes:could we look at #47 ...55 > avri:no teams > Phil Buckingham:Frakes on a plane - good idea > Jothan Frakes:thanks phil > Volker Greimann:If they make a movie of that, Samual L Jackson will star as > Jothan - The Man - Frakes? > Volker Greimann:The least absence of consensus... The may be something we > might want to put in our report > Jothan Frakes:ha Volker... > Jothan Frakes:"Frakes on a plane" is my blog / nickname > Volker Greimann:(I know that, Jothan) > Volker Greimann:VI WG as work? Would that be "votes for sale"? > ken stubbs:Go mikey !! > Alan Greenberg:That works for me > Jothan Frakes:avri I saw a disagree, were you joking? > ken stubbs:please re-clarify what your trying to accomplish here > ken stubbs:getting confused... > Volker Greimann:+1 > Phil Buckingham:Move on (yes) - to what though ???????? > avri:nope, dispairing. i just think that will give us something esle to > disagree about. > ken stubbs:they were arbitrary in Nairobi.. > Volker Greimann:reckless even > Alan Greenberg:Board motion explicitly said they will use any > receommendation in future rounds. > Volker Greimann:well whoopie, that helps > Phil Buckingham:Berry - that is my understanding - further due diligence > from an outside organisation pre Colombia > Volker Greimann:the first round is defining, the second round is...less > important > Volker Greimann:I agree about not shuttung this down > Eric Brunner-Williams:barry is repeating the point made previous that this > is not just about round 1 > Jothan Frakes:I completely agree about not shutting this group down > Alan Greenberg:Berry +1 > Jothan Frakes:yes, Berry +1 > ken stubbs:they were bound to accountability prior to nairobi as well ! > Berry Cobb:unforutantely its out of our hands if any delay in ensued b/c of > VI. > Berry Cobb:its almost...i hate to say it....an overarching issue > ken stubbs:accountability is not something new here. this goies back 10-12 > yrs > avri:i wasn't the one who called the Baord decsion arbitrary. at least not > in relations to this WG. > Volker Greimann:maybe some golden arches would help > Jeffrey Eckhaus:Sorry Avri > Jeffrey Eckhaus:thought that was you > avri:Jeff: no worries, i have called lots of their decsions arbitrary > avri:whose sighs and disparaging comments do we keep hearing on the call? > Jeff Neuman:I am not on the Council.....Yet > avri:i think they want us to disappear from their docket. > avri:i think a WG can propose its own charter changes > ken stubbs:you mean like "whois" ? > avri:but the CO has to approve it, or negotiate it. > avri:but weren't we already late when the 3 day deadline was given? > Jothan Frakes:Mikey, you're to be applauded for your patience and > stewardship on this work in this group as chair. I think I CAN get consensus > on that > Berry Cobb:@ Avri, yes if I recall from the DT, we were given 16 weeks. :-) > Berry Cobb:ha! > Jeff Neuman:Amen Mikey! > ken stubbs:+1 > Jon N:Agree with Mikey > Volker Greimann:very true > Sivasubramanian M:my line dropped > Volker Greimann:the board setting (or requesting) a deadline does not end > our mandate > avri:i think it did not work, becasue many did not beleive the threat and > called the bluff. > Jeff Neuman:Can someone summarize what happened? > Jothan Frakes:here you go jeff > Jothan Frakes:( ) > ken stubbs:veni, vici... > Volker Greimann:Jothan +1 > ken stubbs:no vidi ... > Jothan Frakes:ken, I think there was no veni either ;) > Volker Greimann:and definitely no vici > Jothan Frakes:thank s everyone > Jeff Neuman:thanks > Volker Greimann:bye > Volker Greimann:happy trails indeed - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)