ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-irtp-b-jun09]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP

  • To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:54:30 -0700

Mikey,

My goal is not to derail the rest of the work over this since that rec
was already acted on. The locking question has already been picked up in
the UDRP issues report (done in response to the RAP report).

Tim


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during
> UDRP
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:33 pm
> To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx Mailing List"
> <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>,        "bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list"
> <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>,        Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,        Stéphane
> Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>,        "Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> hi all,
> 
> i'm just lobbing a suggestion into the "locking during UDRP"-recommendation 
> discussion that's going on in advance of the Council meeting coming up later 
> today.  this note is primarily aimed at my Councilors, colleagues in the BC 
> and fellow members of the IRTP-WG, but i've copied a few others just because 
> i can.
> 
> as a member of a working group that's wrapping up two years of work on this 
> stuff, i am hoping that the Council will not rewrite our recommendations on 
> its own.  this is a repeat of the "i'm trainable" comment i made in SFO.  
> what i'm hoping is that the Council will vote the recommendation up or down 
> and, if it would like, sends the defeated recommendation back to the working 
> group for refinement.  you can even include suggestions if you like.  but 
> please don't make changes to our recommendations without giving us a chance 
> to participate in the process. 
> 
> you can invoke all the historic "Council should be *managing* the policy 
> process, not being a legislative body" arguments in this paragraph if you 
> like.
> 
> i'm still trainable.  :-)
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy