RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP
I will mimic Marilyn's standard by stating that I am writing on my own behalf and not that of the BC. In case you were not aware, I also participated on the IRTP-B WG. I will probably not shock anyone with my support of Mikey's view. This is not the only recommendation where the issue of Policy Development vs. Managing the Policy Process has surfaced. I reference the RAP recommendation of a Non-Binding PDP on Best Practices of Malicious Use of Domain Names. We have a proper GNSO sanctioned "pre-PDP" process that would have acted as the framework in which to proceed, and that is what the WG attempted to follow. Instead, the recommendation was watered down to a "Discussion Paper" with no clear guidance on next steps. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall "Discussion Papers" in any part of the GNSO process. I will not claim to be an expert in GNSO bylaws, but in my opinion this is an adequate example where policy development at the Council bypassed consensus of the WG recommendation. But, I digress. Tim, you state that this IRTP recommendation is now folded in to the UDRP Issues report. That's great, and HOPEFULLY a PDP will be approved. However, what happens if a PDP on UDRP does not get approved by the council? Now what? I'm speculating here, but "BLACK HOLE" comes to mind. And when I see black holes the real result is that nothing gets fixed or accomplished except a waste of time. Lastly, I will take these experiences as a valuable learning lesson for future PDP recommendations, if I am involved with such. WG members and community participants MUST be more diligent in how we frame PDP recommendations submitted to the Council. Further, WGs must provide more clarity and less ambiguity of the recommendation and a suggested path on how they should be executed. I personally feel that if we do not course correct soon,the PDP process will be in jeopardy of losing credibility. Thank you for your time. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org] On Behalf Of tim@godaddy.com Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:01 PM To: Mike O'Connor Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP I'd rather not. I've explained it to you. You either don't get it or don't want to. If you want to discuss F2F let me know. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:54:44 To: <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP 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@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@haven2.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:46:25 To: <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Mary.Wong@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@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@haven2.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:18:32 To: Tim Ruiz<tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Mary.Wong@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@icann.org Mailing List" , "bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list" , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane Van Gelder , "Mary.Wong@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.)
I believe this discussion may have been overtaken by events Kristina made a suggestion for an amendment and Tim has accepted as friendly: Resolved (C), the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of IRTP Part B Recommendation #7 and will consider this recommendation when it considers the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025 Fax: +92 21 35655026 www.jamilandjamil.com Notice / Disclaimer This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of DNDRC, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of DNDRC is prohibited. -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: 22 June 2011 10:34 To: tim@godaddy.com; 'Mike O'Connor' Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP I will mimic Marilyn's standard by stating that I am writing on my own behalf and not that of the BC. In case you were not aware, I also participated on the IRTP-B WG. I will probably not shock anyone with my support of Mikey's view. This is not the only recommendation where the issue of Policy Development vs. Managing the Policy Process has surfaced. I reference the RAP recommendation of a Non-Binding PDP on Best Practices of Malicious Use of Domain Names. We have a proper GNSO sanctioned "pre-PDP" process that would have acted as the framework in which to proceed, and that is what the WG attempted to follow. Instead, the recommendation was watered down to a "Discussion Paper" with no clear guidance on next steps. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall "Discussion Papers" in any part of the GNSO process. I will not claim to be an expert in GNSO bylaws, but in my opinion this is an adequate example where policy development at the Council bypassed consensus of the WG recommendation. But, I digress. Tim, you state that this IRTP recommendation is now folded in to the UDRP Issues report. That's great, and HOPEFULLY a PDP will be approved. However, what happens if a PDP on UDRP does not get approved by the council? Now what? I'm speculating here, but "BLACK HOLE" comes to mind. And when I see black holes the real result is that nothing gets fixed or accomplished except a waste of time. Lastly, I will take these experiences as a valuable learning lesson for future PDP recommendations, if I am involved with such. WG members and community participants MUST be more diligent in how we frame PDP recommendations submitted to the Council. Further, WGs must provide more clarity and less ambiguity of the recommendation and a suggested path on how they should be executed. I personally feel that if we do not course correct soon,the PDP process will be in jeopardy of losing credibility. Thank you for your time. Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735 -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org] On Behalf Of tim@godaddy.com Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:01 PM To: Mike O'Connor Cc: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org; bc-gnso@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP I'd rather not. I've explained it to you. You either don't get it or don't want to. If you want to discuss F2F let me know. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:54:44 To: <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP recommendation about locking during UDRP 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@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@haven2.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:46:25 To: <tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Mary.Wong@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@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@haven2.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:18:32 To: Tim Ruiz<tim@godaddy.com> Cc: <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@icann.org>; <bc-gnso@icann.org>; <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>; <Mary.Wong@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@icann.org Mailing List" , "bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list" , Tim Ruiz , Stéphane Van Gelder , "Mary.Wong@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.)
participants (2)
-
Berry Cobb -
Zahid Jamil