RE: [gnso-metrep-wg] another draft of the charter

["Onorato, Tony" <tonorato@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed

From: owner-gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 3:17 PM
To: Pam Little
Cc: Mike O'Connor; Thomas Lowenhaupt; &lt,gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt,
Subject: Re: [gnso-metrep-wg] another draft of the charter

Yup I think that works  Pam =>  Thomas does it work for you???

Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  (CLO)
 http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr

On 16 December 2013 10:07, Pam Little 
<pam.little12@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:pam.little12@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Mikey & Team

Couple of links where you might find Compliance related information:
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance
https://www.myicann.org/compliance

With regard to Thomas' comment, I think both bullets make sense on their own 
and are worth keeping. So perhaps we can try to reconcile them by combining the 
two so that "Metrics and reporting outside the scope of GNSO policy and ICANN 
contracts with contracted parties" becomes a data point for ICANN Compliance to 
collect and report on. However, determining whether a complaint is in or 
outside of scope is not always straight forward - there are a lot of grey 
areas.  A recent blog 
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_how_insider_domain_theft_can_bring_down_icann/
 provides a good example or case study. I think this particular complaint could 
well be "within the scope" if one digs deeper but it looks like Compliance 
staff dismissed the complaint and sent a "just in time education" email.

Kind regards,

Pam

From: owner-gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx>] 
On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:51 PM
To: Thomas Lowenhaupt
Cc: <gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-metrep-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-metrep-wg] another draft of the charter

hm...  good catch Thomas.

i'd be willing to debate the first one (the JIT education stuff) -- especially 
after a frustrating experience this morning trying to FIND some compliance 
related information on the ICANN web page.  i know Compliance has made great 
strides, because people have told me they have.  but i sure can't figure out 
what they're basing that impression on.  the only thing i could come up with is 
a Dashboard page that ends at 2011.  there's a server at 
compliance.icann.org<http://compliance.icann.org> -- but it times out.  so i 
think there's plenty of room for improvement in the delivery of Compliance 
information to the general public.

the second one is left over from the RAPWG Alumni report -- where we said that 
it would probably be a good idea to limit the scope of this experimental 
"non-PDP working group" to items within the remit of the GNSO this first time 
around.  that one i'll defend more stoutly.  :-)

m

On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt 
<toml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:toml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Mikey and Other Members of the MetRep,

I'm a bit confused about one aspect of the In and Out of scope. When the In 
Scope says:

  *   "Just in time education" describing reporting or action options that are 
available when the person's problem falls outside ICANN policy

And the Out of Scope says:

*       Metrics and reporting outside the scope of GNSO policy and ICANN 
contracts with contracted parties
It's a bit opaque to me. In the first instance it seem to say that for problems 
outside ICANN's scope people are to be provided with "education."  But the Out 
of Scope says that, as these are "outside the scope of GNSO policy," we don't 
count the instances.

Is this unclear to anyone else?

Best,

Tom Lowenhaupt
On 12/14/2013 7:33 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
hi all,

i seem to be constantly apologizing for how long it takes me to turn documents 
around.  i'm taking steps to remedy that problem by reducing lower-priority 
ICANN commitments, but the changes haven't quite "taken" yet.

anyway, here's a new version of the draft.  i took a look at the last draft and 
decided that the root cause of the trouble was the "Purpose" section that i 
lifted from the RAPWG alumni memo.  so i deleted it.  the puzzler i'll  present 
to you is to check to see if i threw out too much.  i don't think i have, but 
more eyes would help with that.

mikey




PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)




PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)