Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft Preliminary Report

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1
On 6/14/10 1:19 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Antony,
> 
> Actually, I agree with you about the polls, and particular the most
> recent poll.
> 
>  
> 
> My comment was about including the Proposal-Matrix—the Table. Hope
> that’s OK J
> 
> Best,
> 
>  
> 
> *Kathy Kleiman*
> 
> *Director of Policy***
> 
> *.ORG The Public Interest Registry*
> 
> *Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Visit us online!*
> 
> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>
> 
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall>
> 
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>
> 
> See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>
> 
>  
> 
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:***
> 
> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 14, 2010 1:12 PM
> *To:* Kathy Kleiman
> *Cc:* Margie Milam; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft Preliminary Report
> 
>  
> 
> I am having a very hard time filling out the new poll (for the reasons
> have given).   Furthermore, I am struck by the presumptions of the poll.  
> 
>  
> 
> Most of the questions presume a restriction on competition and from
> there carve out either broader or smaller exemptions.    This in spite
> of the fact that the majority of respondents favored the free-trade
> model, which presumes the opposite.  
> 
>  
> 
> As we know, results of polls largely depend on the questions asked.  
> 
>  
> 
> I must disagree with Kathy in wanting to include the results of this
> poll in any executive summary, because of the inherent skewing.
> 
>  
> 
> Antony
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Margie and All,
> 
> Tx for a first draft of the Preliminary Report. Appreciate it in such a
> busy time!
> 
>  
> 
> Following up on my comments on the slides, I think the Proposal-Matrix
> should be included in WG Report in a prominent way – reflected in both
> the Executive Summary and having its own section of the Report. The
> Proposal-Matrix is a snapshot of work to date – of the many proposals
> submitted, of the effort spent on each one, and of the compromises which
> followed.
> 
>  
> 
> As Mikey’s new doodle shows, it contains key elements of agreement/key
> atoms of discussion and review. It is a compilation and a “reader’s
> guide” to our work.
> 
>  
> 
> Thus, I would recommend that the Proposal-Matrix be part of both the
> Executive Summary and have its own section of the Report:
> 
> -          Executive Summary could explain the proposal submission
> process, the enthusiastic responses, the Proposal-Matrix as a
> compilation, and provide a direct reference to the Proposal-Matrix in
> the Appendix and online.
> 
> -          Report Section: I think we also should create a separate
> section of the report presenting the Proposal-Matrix, and explaining
> each of its elements (the ones along the horizontal edge). Those reading
> may not be as familiar with the acronyms, or underlying concepts as we
> are.  One or two sentences per Matrix column should be sufficient to
> explain the concepts.
> 
> -          Note: I like the way Mikey has prepared the matrix with
> new/current proposals on top, and older proposals below (our evolution!)
> 
>  
> 
> That’s the thought.
> 
> Best,
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *Kathy Kleiman*
> 
> *Director of Policy*
> 
> *.ORG The Public Interest Registry*
> 
> *Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Visit us online!*
> 
> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>
> 
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall>
> 
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>
> 
> See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>
> 
>  
> 
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:*
> 
> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If
> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
> *On
> Behalf Of *Margie Milam
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 10, 2010 6:04 PM
> *To:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> *Subject:* [gnso-vi-feb10] First Draft Preliminary Report
> *Importance:* High
> 
>  
> 
> Dear All,
> 
>  
> 
> As discussed on today’s call, please find attached for your review a
> very rough first draft of the Preliminary Report for the VI Working
> Group.    Please note that the content largely covers background
> information and documents related to the PDP, but needs substantial
> revision to describe the substantive proposals and support levels
> associated with them.  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   Specifically, more content is needed for the following sections:  1.
>   Executive Summary,  4. Substantive Proposals with Initial Levels of
>   Support within the VI Working Group, and 5. Conclusions and Next Steps.  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  Best Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Margie
> 
> _________
> 
>  
> 
> Margie Milam
> 
> Senior Policy Counselor
> 
> ICANN
> 
> ___________
> 
>  
>