Re: [council] ICANN Comment periods due soon after Seoul

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

You make a very good point. In fact, it could be taken further with a
request for ICANN to attempt to spread the release of documents and reports
that are produced so that they don't all come out 2 weeks before each ICANN
meeting.

I know this point has been addressed before, and I know that ICANN staff are
operating under very difficult conditions with a huge amount of documents
and reports to process. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for the
community to be able to take the load. So when a large number of reports are
published in the run-up to a meeting, it just becomes impossible for people
to process and give them the attention they deserve.

If the 3 months in between each meeting could be used to spread the load a
little, I'm sure that would help.

Anyway, just to say that the registrars support your request re the comment
periods.

Stéphane




Le 07/10/09 06:03, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> In reviewing open ICANN comment periods with the
> ALAC officers today, we were somewhat taken aback
> by the number and importance of ICANN comment
> periods that had just opened in the last several
> days and are scheduled to end soon after the Seoul meeting.
> 
> Posted 01 Oct,  Due 01 Nov,   Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR)
> Posted 02 Oct,  Due 06 Nov,   Domain Names
> Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service
> Posted 05 Oct,  Due 04 Nov,   NomCom Review ­ Draft Working Group Report
> Posted 05 Oct,  Due 04 Nov,   SSAC Review ­ Draft Working Group Report
> Posted 05 Oct,  Due 04 Nov,   Board Review ­ Draft Final Working Group Report
> 
> Although we seemed to recall that a commitment
> had been made to not "count" the time during an
> ICANN meeting against one month comment periods,
> that is clearly not being done here. For the
> Seoul meeting, many of us will spend 7-8 business
> days in transit or at the meeting, significantly
> cutting into the time available to comment.
> 
> And we noted that although all of these topics
> are quite important, only the ERSR one could
> really be viewed as very time-sensitive.
> 
> The ALAC will likely request a 2 week extension
> on all five comment periods. The GNSO Council may
> wish to consider a similar move.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature