[gnso-rpm-wg] PLEASE CONSIDER A REPLY: Proposed Working Group call next week

[Phil Corwin]

We have not made any final decisions based upon a single call and without extensive email list discussion.

Indeed, we’ve been quite clear that even when we make decisions they remain open to being revisited, and that nothing is final until we complete a final report and recommendations.




Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 1:50 PM
To: Mathieu Weill
Cc: David A. Tait
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] PLEASE CONSIDER A REPLY: Proposed Working Group call next week

Decisions should never be made without opportunity for feedback from the mail list.  There are relatively few people ever on a call, compared to the number of people on this list.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:
If I may follow up, an additional benefit of not making decisions on a
single call is that it makes it easier for participants who may have
difficulties expressing their views during a meeting (because of a lack of
confidence in their English speaking abilities for instance) to submit
inputs in writing in between meetings.

Best
Mathieu

-----Message d'origine-----
De : gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>]
De la part de Paul Keating
Envoyé : jeudi 19 janvier 2017 14:11
À : Susan Payne; George Kirikos; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Objet : Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] PLEASE CONSIDER A REPLY: Proposed Working Group
call next week

For what its worth, my 2 Cents:

We created the different timing for the call (which I supported and
continue to support).  However, I would like to see some indication of the
number of people on those calls.  This is not with the idea of cancelling
them.  Rather, we might want to adopt a policy of NOT reaching definitive
decisions on EITHER of the calls (Asia vs non-Asia) so that those unable
to participate in either can have input prior to making group decisions.
The alternative would be to solicit group email comments on specific
points pending decision.  I realize this may make things more complicated
but it has the attraction of ensuring maximum participation formulating
consensus-driven decisions.

Paul

On 1/19/17, 11:09 AM, "Susan Payne" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on
behalf of susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>> wrote:

>Hi George - I think that was my comment so thanks for pointing that out.
>I did not recall the cancellation for INTA but with that in mind if a
>similar large number of people would be missing the call for NamesCon I
>agree it seems reasonable to cancel.  I do think it does depend on the
>volume of participants for whom the event is a factor (regardless of
>which event it happens to be).  In this case we need to take into
>account that this is the call scheduled to be more convenient for those
>in AsPac timezones, who maybe won't be going to NamesCon (I have no
>idea whether they will or not).  The conflict equally doesn't affect me
>since I can't join a call at 4am, so my absence from the call has
>nothing to do with NamesCon.
>
>Susan Payne
>Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
>
>E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
>D: +44 20 7421 8255<tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255>
>T: +44 20 7421 8299<tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299>
>M: +44 7971 661175<tel:%2B44%207971%20661175>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
>Sent: 19 January 2017 00:50
>To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] PLEASE CONSIDER A REPLY: Proposed Working
>Group call next week
>
>During today's call, some folks felt that the call scheduled for next
>week should still be held, despite some folks being unable due to their
>attendance at the large NamesCon event, as "there are always some folks
>who can't make it." However, I'd like to remind people that back in May
>2016 we cancelled a working group call due to INTA having their Orlando
>meeting:
>
>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2016-May/000291.html
>
>So, it would only be fair, in my opinion, that next week's call be
>cancelled. [the conflict doesn't affect me personally, by the way; I
>can make it next week]
>
>If it's not cancelled, then the next time there's a conflict with an
>INTA meeting, we should not change our own schedule to accommodate
>those going to INTA events.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269>
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>> wrote:
>> I will also be at NamesCon.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 18 Jan 2017, at 21:23, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Members,
>>
>>
>>
>> Those Members who were present at the Working Group meeting held
>>earlier today agreed to go ahead with the meeting scheduled for next
>>Wednesday. In view, however, of the fact that quite a few Members will
>>be traveling to NamesCon at that time, coupled with its being the
>>first meeting time that is rotating to 0400 UTC, it will be helpful if
>>we can get a sense of how many Members will not be able to attend the
>>meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> As such, please take a moment to reply to me if you know you will NOT
>> be on the call next Wednesday at 0400 UTC ­ note that there¹s no need
>> to Reply All or reply at all if you plan to be on the call.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>_______________________________________________
>gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg


_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13754 - Release Date: 01/12/17
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170119/b64c0bfe/attachment-0001.html>