Thanks Liz for these thoughts. It is hard for me to imagine anyone
complaining if ‘pre-defined requirements for conducting public
comments’ are simply extended to provide greater time.
I echo the concerns about the 3x-yearly document drop on
Councilors. But I am more concerned to keep moving forward on
policy development rather than focusing such immense amounts of time
on restructure and process. Policy development is our primary job,
and the ICANN community and broader public expects it from us, in
particular to help deal with immense harms enabled by abusive domain
registrations. For many months there has been relatively little
policy development discussion on Council, and a large imbalance
towards process issues. This is frustrating for those of us elected
and intending to push for policy development. We should spend at
least an equal amount of time on policy development than on process,
preferably the vast majority of our time, even during this big
structural and procedural transition.
Thanks,
Mike
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:10 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Council resolution regarding extension of public
comment periods
All,
The ICANN staff recognizes the intent behind this resolution and we
will begin to think through any implications associated with this
recommendation. As a threshold matter, it may be helpful to mention
that many structures within ICANN have pre-defined requirements for
conducting public comments, including the time frames required for
soliciting public comment. These differ today by entity, many
requirements are specified in various bylaws provisions applicable
to various structures, including requirements applicable to Board-
initiated solicitations for public comment. The current bylaws
provisions applicable to GNSO Council-related solicitations for
public comment are specific to the GNSO Council.
Staff has also heard concerns from some Council members about the
volume of reports and materials produced by ICANN staff (and
possibly working group reports as well) just prior to and during
ICANN meetings, because of the challenges associated with reviewing
and being prepared to comment on late-breaking documents and
reports. For example, staff was directed to complete the
registration abuse issues report prior to the Cairo ICANN meeting
specifically so that the report could be discussed in Cairo, but,
understandably, many Council members were unable to read the report
in time for a timely discussion. Thus, it may also be appropriate
to consider whether deadlines for other deliverables should also be
extended accordingly to further address Council member concerns.
Staff looks forward to discussing all this further with Council
members.
Thanks, Liz