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

[Paul Diaz <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>]

Great points, Marika.  Then I suggest we forgo the pubic comment review tool 
and present Marika's revised draft to the Council at the weekend session (if 
time permits) or the Wednesday open meeting.  Mikey, please be sure to 
sensitize the Council to the DT's scope limits and the need for careful 
chartering to address all of the relevant issues - if/when Council decides to 
initiate a formal PDP.

On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Marika Konings wrote:

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<mailto: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><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.)




<default.xml>