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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

No worries, I'll fix that before it gets sent to the GNSO Council.

Best regards,

Marika

On 20/06/12 14:10, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>oops.  missed my change of affiliation from CBUC to ISPCP on page 8.  no
>big deal, but nice if we could sneak it inŠ
>
>except for that -- rockin'!  looks good from here.  thanks again!
>
>mikey
>
>
>On Jun 20, 2012, at 5:35 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Please find attached the updated 'final' version of the report for
>> submission to the GNSO Council (I've attached both a clean version as
>>well
>> as a redline to facilitate review). If there any objections, please
>>advise
>> the mailing list as soon as possible. If no objections are made, I'll
>>send
>> the report to the GNSO Council tomorrow, 21 June.
>> 
>> With best regards,
>> 
>> Marika
>> 
>> P.S. This is the same version as circulated to the mailing list
>>yesterday,
>> apart from adding the date.
>> 
>> On 20/06/12 11:14, ""Michele Neylon :: Blacknight""
>> <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.)
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> <Fake Renewal Notices - Updated Report - Redline - FINAL 20 June
>>2012.pdf><Fake Renewal Notices - Updated Report - FINAL 20 June 2012.pdf>
>
>- - - - - - - - -
>phone  651-647-6109
>fax            866-280-2356
>web    http://www.haven2.com
>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
>etc.)
>
>