ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from the call today...

  • To: vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from the call today...
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:35:12 -0500

>  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.)

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy