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
<mailto: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
___________