Re: [gnso-frn-dt] i had a go at a revised draft of the report

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i have mixed views about the public-review tool.  we've already exceeded our 
charter with all those suggestions.  our solution to that was to go out for 
public comment so that the Council would have some reactions.  but we're just a 
drafting team, not a PDP working group and i worry that we're sliding down a 
slippery slope.

i'd much rather get this back in the hands of the Council where it belongs and 
put us out of business.

i suppose one way to do that is not to change the report at all, tell the 
Council that the report plus comments on that report are now in their hands and 
it's up to them to make a decision.

mikey

On Jun 19, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Marika Konings wrote:

> Hi Mikey,
> 
> Sorry for the delay. Please find attached a slightly revised version in
> which I've updated some of the sections to reflect the current state of
> the report as well as including the report of public comments as an Annex.
> With regard to your question, if/when the DT signs off on the revised
> draft, it will get submitted to the GNSO Council which will then need to
> decide how to proceed. One thing the DT may want to consider doing, in
> addition to the revisions in the report, is to create a public comment
> review tool in which a response is provided to each of the submissions so
> this can be included as an annex and shows that due consideration is given
> to all comments, even if not all have resulted in changes to the report.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> On 18/06/12 16:23, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> hm.
>> 
>> the silence is "great job mikey"?  i'm thinking it would be nice to get
>> this little one cleared off the plate fairly quickly -- Marika, what
>> happens to a revised draft once we give it the nod?
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 16, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> 
>>> hi all,
>>> 
>>> 'seemed like scheduling and logistics got Too Hard.  it also seemed
>>> like the comments were pretty easy to accommodate.  so i just went ahead
>>> and cranked out a new draft.
>>> 
>>> it's unchanged until we get down to the "options" part at the end.
>>> there, i added one to add this to an upcoming WHOIS PDP with a "worthy
>>> of broader discussion by the Council but not our preferred approach"
>>> pretty much in line with our view on adding it to a PDP on the RAA.  i
>>> also refined the "launch a PDP on FRN" one that we had at the end based
>>> on the ALAC comments -- there, i made the "narrow" point more clear,
>>> added some benefits and bumped it up to that same "worthy of broader
>>> discussion but not our preferred approach" status.
>>> 
>>> so take a look at this draft and see what you think.  the substantive
>>> change is to agree on what our views are about those two additions, i
>>> think.
>>> 
>>> mikey
>>> 
>>> <FRN Rp1 - wComments v1 - 16 June 2012.doc>
>>> 
>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>> phone       651-647-6109
>>> fax                 866-280-2356
>>> web         http://www.haven2.com
>>> handle      OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
>>> etc.)
>>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone        651-647-6109
>> fax                  866-280-2356
>> web  http://www.haven2.com
>> handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
>> etc.)
>> 
>> 
> 
> <Fake Renewal Notices - Updated Report - 19 June 2012.doc>

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)