ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Regarding public comment processes

  • To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Regarding public comment processes
  • From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:08:12 -0800 (PST)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=N4fErWOVvm8gNVDTBBEkRumepWfTnhhQM6uF3Iux5N42A3cKTLnlKFNIq7su4EBGIZMIEneLWG1wKnk1lRNNzxsmapuYb/PIq3qlKl7ESp2t/5xfIt6TQWld0f1sP9GEjAzlONzNzAWOhLRYhfA9fZqk5cHMyTEL6WdeRdxMHOo= ;
  • In-reply-to: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB54024EC27B@balius.mit>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Bruce, all:

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
.....
> 
> So - I believe that as a principle when we are having a physical
> meeting
> we should at least allow the opportunity for members of the public
> to
> speak on an issue, but these comments should be assessed on an
> equal
> basis with formal written material.  

I am confortable with this approach. So that you get the full picture
of my concern, the question was also that:

i) if we are to make progress on the issues to be discussed (which
means we will be making decisions), I was concerned that we may get
into negotiations of some kind with live participants, and the live
inputs may lock some options/decisions at the expenses of some other.
Which, from what you're saying, shouldn't be the case.

ii) Second, and maybe most importantly, is it okay to decide upon a
public consultation meeting between two conference calls, or is this
a policy, or if you will, a "rules and regulations" kind of
requirement we need to advise and advertise well in advance for all
to be aware of?

I rest my case,

Mawaki


We will also have any papers
> that
> have been submitted formally, and have the ability to ask the
> authors of
> those papers to give a short summary of their paper and allow the
> opportunity for questions.  This was discussed in January when we
> discussed the call for papers.  This is no requirement for the
> authors
> to be present in-person.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>