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

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

There is nothing for the WG  to fix and the Council is not changing any recs. 
We just want to consider that one with the UDRP issue it is already tied in 
with. I am all for process, but we can protect that without duplicating efforts.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:18:32 
To: Tim Ruiz<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP

yep -- i get that Tim.  i'm really zeroed in on the process, though.  it would 
be fine to push it back to the WG with your comment as annotation.  this issue 
is the perfect one to use as a test-case for the very reasons you describe.  my 
worry is that some day we'll get to a tough/complex issue  on a WG report and 
the Council will roar off and try to fix it on the fly rather than pushing it 
back to the people who've devoted the time to get up to speed on the nuances.

as a WG member i'd much rather hear "hey WG folks, can you fix this?" than "we 
fixed it for you."


On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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" 
> > Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 6:33 pm
> > To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx Mailing List"
> > , "bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list"
> > , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane
> > Van Gelder , "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.)
> 

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