Re: [council] Motion re Extension of Public Comment Periods

["Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza" <caffsouza@xxxxxxxxx>]

Of course we should aim at clarity at all times and not the at the
particular technics of a certain legal term.

In any case, "suspension" is commonly used in opposition to "interruption"
of a term so as to communicate that the time that has passed before an event
or circumstance that suspended it is taken into account for the counting of
the term after the event/circumstance ends. Its the difference between a
"pause" (to suspend a term) and a "stop" (interruption - when you count the
term all over again after the event/circumstance).

But I understand that we are not requesting the suspension or interruption
of the term, but just a plain 7-day extension after the Meetings. It is much
more simple and useful. As I am quite certain that we all would like to have
such extension in all cases in which a overlap occurs, I totally agree with
the wording of the proposed motion v.3.


The GNSO Council strongly urges ICANN Staff to extend, for seven days, any
public comment periods which overlap with any of the seven days of an ICANN
meeting.


2008/11/5 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>  I do not believe it is a good idea to suspend comment periods.  Just make
> sure they are longer.
>
> Chuck
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *On Behalf Of *Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:10 AM
> *To:* GNSO Council
> *Subject:* Re: [council] Motion re Extension of Public Comment Periods
>
>  Agreed. Thats why we could work with "suspend" as to indicate that as
> soon as the meeting starts the clock stops running for comment periods.
>
>
> 2008/11/5 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>  I am not sure we should restrict it to only comment periods that would
>> end during an ICANN meeting.  It seems to me that any comment period that
>> overlaps an ICANN meeting should be extended.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>  *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
>> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:48 AM
>> *To:* 'GNSO Council'
>> *Subject:* RE: [council] Motion re Extension of Public Comment Periods
>>
>>    Thanks all for considering this late-breaking motion.  Here is an
>> amended version of the "Resolved" paragraph -- to clarify 'extension' vs.
>> 'suspension…
>>
>>
>>
>> RESOLVED:
>>
>>
>>
>> The GNSO Council strongly urges ICANN Staff to extend, for seven days,
>> any public comment periods which would otherwise end during the seven
>> days of an ICANN meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2008 10:46 PM
>> *To:* GNSO Council
>> *Subject:* [council] Motion re Suspension of Public Comment Periods
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all:  several Councilors would like to introduce and pass this motion
>> today, whilst we have several different, significant and ongoing public
>> comment periods.  Therefore I make the motion…
>>
>>
>>
>> Whereas, ICANN's meetings require the full attention of GNSO Councilors
>> and many other GNSO participants.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whereas, ICANN has many ongoing public comment periods of significant
>> interest to many GNSO Councilors and participants.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whereas, ICANN's typical comment periods are already difficult for many
>> members of the ICANN community, particularly those that must consult with
>> members of their Constituency and/or member organization(s).
>>
>>
>>
>> RESOLVED:
>>
>>
>>
>> The GNSO Council strongly urges ICANN Staff to extend all public comment
>> periods which would otherwise end during an ICANN meeting, for seven
>> days.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>
>> Rodenbaugh Law
>>
>> PO Box 7775 #55819
>>
>> San Francisco, CA  94120
>>
>> +1.415.254.4590
>>
>>
>>
>>
>