RE: [council] Regarding public comment processes

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Mawaki,

> 
> 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.

No.  The work on issues would be undertaken by the committee.

The public comment process would be conducted as part of the normal
public comment processes as part of the PDP.

In the past few physical GNSO Council meetings we have offered the
opportunity for public comment on any issues currently before the
Council - this is just being consistent with that recent practice.   It
restores a process that used to occur in the "General Assembly" portion
of ICANN meetings.

> 
> 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?
> 

The option to hold the physical meeting is on the agenda for the meeting
on 6 Feb 2006.  The proposal to attempt a face-to-face meeting to
advance our work was included in the draft agenda for the Council
meeting posted on 20 Jan 2006.   

The discussion on the mailing list is an attempt to develop a proposal
that has sufficient detail (dates/location/content) to allow the Council
to make a decision whether to go ahead in its meeting on 6 Feb 2006.  I
have been reading carefully the various comments and have tried to
select a date/location that is a reasonable compromise amongst the
various constraints of Council members.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin