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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

yep.  and so does this volunteer WG member.  i'm now fully trained.


On Jun 22, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> Mikey,
> 
> I think the GNSO Council has a clear understanding of its role in the policy 
> development process.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> 
> Le 22 juin 2011 à 02:18, Mike O'Connor a écrit :
> 
>> 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.)