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

["\"Michele Neylon :: Blacknight\"" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

He's a rock star :-)

Mr. Michele Neylon
Blacknight
http://Blacknight.tel

Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity

On 20 Jun 2012, at 13:05, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> nicely done Squishy!
> 
> 
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
> 
>> Just for the record
>> 
>> I support the edits and the approach
>> 
>> And Squishy is very happy to have been mentioned on an ICANN mailing list 
>> https://twitter.com/mneylon/status/215346668659417088
>> --
>> Mr Michele Neylon
>> Blacknight Solutions
>> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
>> http://www.blacknight.com/
>> http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> http://mneylon.tel/
>> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>> Locall: 1850 929 929
>> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> -------------------------------
>> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: owner-gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of 
>> Mike O'Connor [mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 19 June 2012 21:03
>> To: Marika Konings; gnso-frn-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-frn-dt] i had a go at a revised draft of the report
>> 
>> 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.)
>> 
>> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone    651-647-6109  
> fax          866-280-2356  
> web    http://www.haven2.com
> handle    OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
> etc.)
>