<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed endgame motion for Whois Task Force - with Whereas'es
Hi Avri -
I believe that the terms of the PDP have already been fulfilled, but
that with such an important issue, further public comment is definitely
warranted. Given that this comment period is optional and that we have
had extensive public comment on the issues thus far, we should really be
seeking to optimize for two important inputs:
a) ensuring that the public views on the WG output is appropriately
solicited and adequately understood by Council, and;
b) ensure that the constituency views on the WG is appropriately
solicited and adequately understood by Council.
Given that the WG process was essentially a public process, we have
already allowed for unprecedented and substanial input into the process.
What we haven't done is provide the constituencies with a period in
which to consider the report and its implications.
There is actually one other option available to us - we could shorten up
the time period for the constituency comments. I don't actually believe
that this is where we should try to save time on the schedule, but it is
an option. My strong preference is that we instead reduce the public
comment period by three business days instead.
I do understand the opposition to this proposal, but after seven years
of discussion on this question, three years of focus on the current
working group and six months devoted to the public working group
process, I am disinclined to believe that a full 20 day comment period
will have a material impact on the outcome of this process.
Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I don't believe I can shorten the public review which is supposed to be
20 days.
and I don't think it is a good idea to vote before that review is complete.
In order to end the public comment by Oct 31, the public comment would
need to begin
by Oct 11. Since it can take 4 days after Liz finishes writing to get
the material
on the web site for the public comment, i just don't see that it would
be possible
for her to get the work done in 3 days after the end of the time limit
for the
constituencies. And I do want to give the constituencies enough time
to deliberate.
So, while I would really like to hold a public vote on this as you suggest,
I just don't see how.
a.
On 31 aug 2007, at 14.25, Ross Rader wrote:
Avri Doria wrote:
Proposed Text for motion to be voted on September 6 2007
Thanks for the detail Avri - this is helpful. Might I suggest one
small amendment? Specifically as it relates to the following:
- Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 -
> November 6, 2007
>
6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the LA Public
Meeting
7 - Final vote on first GNSO Council meeting after November 6, 2007
I would like to propose that the public comment period end at the
public discussion of the of issue during the LA meeting. This would
then allow council to take all constituency, public and written
commentary into account for deliberation on the agenda during the L.A.
meeting, rather than at the next meeting thereafter. This would have
the effect of shortening the public comment period by only 3 business
days, which i believe would be more then offset by the value of
discussing the issue several times you propose during the face to face
meetings in LA. It would be nice to get this one off the books in one
way or another at the LA Public Meeting.
Therefore, the formal amendment that I would like to make is as follows:
- that "November 6, 2007" in step 5 be replaced with "October 31, 2007"
- that "after November 6, 2007" in step 7 be replaced with "during the
LA Public Meeting".
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
--
Regards,
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492
--
Regards,
Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|