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

[Mike O'Connor]

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 at godaddy.com 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 at haven2.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:46:25 
> To: <tim at godaddy.com>
> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09 at icann.org>; <bc-gnso at icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>; <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
> 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 at godaddy.com 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 at haven2.com>
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:18:32 
>> To: Tim Ruiz<tim at godaddy.com>
>> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09 at icann.org>; <bc-gnso at icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>; <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
>> 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 at icann.org Mailing List"
>>>> , "bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list"
>>>> , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane
>>>> Van Gelder , "Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
>>>> 
>>>> 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.)