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

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

yep, works for me.

sorry about the sluggish reply.  note to self -- don't try to keep up with two 
20-something surveyors when they're tromping around in your woods putting in 
survey markers.  i felt like Squishy at the end.

go for it Marika.  and many thanks.

mikey


On Jun 19, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Marika Konings wrote:

> Mikey, are you also okay with this approach? If so, I'll go ahead and
> check with the Council leadership whether there is any time available
> during the weekend or on Wednesday.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marika
> 
> On 19/06/12 17:37, "jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> -------- Original Message--------
>> Subject:: Re: [gnso-frn-dt] i had a go at a revised draft of the report
>> From: Paul Diaz &lt;pdiaz@xxxxxxx&gt;
>> Date: Jun 19, 2012 10:24
>> To:: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>,"gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx"
>> <gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> 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>
> 

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