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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Berry,

Regarding the RAP issue, one of the problems is that we are a Policy
body, and there is no mechanism through which Council or Staff can
address BPs. That may need to be fixed, but that is an issue we had to
deal with. Councilors are just volunteers trying to work within the
processes we are allowed to work in, and make the best calls we can. 

Regarding the locking question, I have said several times now that we
are NOT changing the recommendation. We are just considering it at a not
much later date, likely July but possibly August. And remember the rec
says if or when the UDRP is reviewed then this issue should be looked
at, it does not recommend a review of the UDRP, correct? It also is not
tied into to any other rec and so there is no impact on other recs by
considering it separately. 

Best,
Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking
> during UDRP
> From: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, June 21, 2011 9:33 pm
> To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>, <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>,
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I will mimic Marilyn's standard by stating that I am writing on my own
> behalf and not that of the BC.  In case you were not aware, I also
> participated on the IRTP-B WG.
> 
> I will probably not shock anyone with my support of Mikey's view.  This is
> not the only recommendation where the issue of Policy Development vs.
> Managing the Policy Process has surfaced.  I reference the RAP
> recommendation of a Non-Binding PDP on Best Practices of Malicious Use of
> Domain Names.  We have a proper GNSO sanctioned "pre-PDP" process that would
> have acted as the framework in which to proceed, and that is what the WG
> attempted to follow.  Instead, the recommendation was watered down to a
> "Discussion Paper" with no clear guidance on next steps.  Correct me if I am
> wrong, but I do not recall "Discussion Papers" in any part of the GNSO
> process.  I will not claim to be an expert in GNSO bylaws, but in my opinion
> this is an adequate example where policy development at the Council bypassed
> consensus of the WG recommendation.  But, I digress.
> 
> Tim, you state that this IRTP recommendation is now folded in to the UDRP
> Issues report.  That's great, and HOPEFULLY a PDP will be approved.
> However, what happens if a PDP on UDRP does not get approved by the council?
> Now what?  I'm speculating here, but "BLACK HOLE" comes to mind.  And when I
> see black holes the real result is that nothing gets fixed or accomplished
> except a waste of time.
> 
> Lastly, I will take these experiences as a valuable learning lesson for
> future PDP recommendations, if I am involved with such.  WG members and
> community participants MUST be more diligent in how we frame PDP
> recommendations submitted to the Council.  Further, WGs must provide more
> clarity and less ambiguity of the recommendation and a suggested path on how
> they should be executed.
> 
> I personally feel that if we do not course correct soon,the PDP process will
> be in jeopardy of losing credibility.  
> 
> Thank you for your time.
> 
> Berry Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://infinityportals.com
> 720.839.5735
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:01 PM
> To: Mike O'Connor
> 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
> 
> 
> I'd rather not. I've explained it to you. You either don't get it or don't
> want to. If you want to discuss F2F let me know.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:54:44
> To: <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
> 
> Tim, i'd much rather have this conversation over a limited-scope test-case
> issue that's relatively straightforward to resolve than a really hard one.
> 
> if working groups are the place where policy gets made, then let the WG fix
> this minor problem for you rather than fixing it yourselves.
> 
> On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:52 AM, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > Mikey,
> > 
> > My record is pretty clear on process. I defend it fiercly. But you are
> really blowing this out of proportion. If you are trainable, let it show.
> Let's discuss further F2F.
> > 
> > Best,
> > Tim
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:46:25
> > To: <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
> > 
> > you folks get to do whatever you want to do -- but like i said, i'm
> trainable.  if you as the Council are going to make that call, without
> engaging the WG in the conversation, you're setting precedents that the
> Council may come to regret when it is trying to recruit volunteers to devote
> years of their lives to efforts like that in the future.
> > 
> > all you have to do is ask us, rather than telling us.
> > 
> > On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:40 AM, tim@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> 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.)
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > - - - - - - - - -
> > 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.)