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

[Paul Diaz <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with Mikey.  We're just a DT, and are supposed to have a very narrow 
mandate.  While I commend efforts to make any policy work as accountable and 
transparent as possible, I think it sets a bad precedent to get ahead of the 
process with a public comment review tool.

I suggest that we submit Mikey's revised draft to the Council and note the 
comments received.  Council can then decide how to proceed.  Who is this DT's 
liaison to the Council?  If DT's don't have one, let's be sure to clearly 
communicate the limits we saw for ourselves, and make sure any PDP charter 
allows the WG to explore the issues raised.

Best, P


On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:


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<mailto: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.)