Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft Motion for GNSO

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

ah.  good deal.  yep, i agree Alan.  let's not push this too fast, especially 
if it's just a "nice to have" item.  much better to be able to really focus the 
group on the motion and get it right the first time.



On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Thanks Mikey. Sage words.
> 
> The motion was being proposed not for formal Council action (since we did not 
> publish our report in time for that) but for preliminary discussion. There is 
> no real need to have it on the table for the Singapore meeting, so perhaps we 
> need to take a deep breath and not rush.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 14/06/2011 11:15 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>> hi all,
>> 
>> having just dragged the poor IRTP WG through this discussion, let me offer 
>> the strong suggestion that we not rush through this motion.  none of us 
>> really focused on a couple of key issues in the motion until we looked at in 
>> on the call and realized that there were some subtle but substantive 
>> problems with the way the motion was worded.
>> 
>> my preference would be that we review the motion on a call -- but if that 
>> can't happen then let me say this
>> 
>>        TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THIS MOTION PEEPUL!!
>> 
>> we owe it to ourselves and all the work that we've done as a group to make 
>> sure that this motion is absolutely right BEFORE it is made.  we're in an 
>> awkward position with IRTP because the motion has already been made and 
>> changes are now outside of the control of the working group.
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>> > I am attaching the motion which Marika drafted. She passed it by me and 
>> > after a cursory look at it said it was ok. On further consideration, I see 
>> > that I did not look at it carefully enough.
>> >
>> > Specifically, I did not notice that the motion divided the Recommendations 
>> > into several groups, only one of which is to be sent to the Board for 
>> > their approval.
>> >
>> > I strongly feel that the entire set of recommendations should be passed to 
>> > the Board.
>> >
>> > Recommendation 17 (Registrars must point to new education material) in 
>> > particular *MUST* go to the Board as it was the intent that this become 
>> > part of the RAA, just as the current Registrant Rights and 
>> > Responsibilities document was included in the last RAA revision.
>> >
>> > Recommendation 16 (develop education material) and 18 (compliance 
>> > follow-up and reporting) request ICANN Staff action, and the should have 
>> > the weight of the Board accepting them to ensure that the work is funded 
>> > and done.
>> >
>> > And I believe that for consistency, Recommendations 10, 11 and 12 (Best 
>> > Practices) should go to the Board as well, although that is of less import.
>> >
>> > Alan<Motion-Draft.pdf>
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> 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.)