Re: [gnso-frn-dt] i had a go at a revised draft of the report
Maybe just to clarify, the GNSO Council did request the DT at its last meeting to review the comments received, decide whether any changes should be made to its report as a result and report back accordingly to the GNSO Council. Obviously, it is up to the DT to decide how to do this, with or without a public comment review tool. With regard to a Council liaison, I don't believe there is one for this group, but when the report is delivered to the GNSO Council I would expect that the Chair of the DT is invited to present the report and provide any additional commentary, as necessary. If the DT is in agreement with the latest version of the report, you may even want to consider asking for some time on the GNSO Council schedule on the weekend or on the open meeting on Wednesday to explain the changes made (even if the Council may not be in a position yet to take a formal decision on the report and the recommendations). With best regards, Marika On 19/06/12 16:34, "Paul Diaz" <pdiaz@xxxxxxx> wrote: >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.) > > > Attachment:
default.xml
|