RE: [council] Council resolution regarding extension of public comment periods

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Liz for these thoughts.  It is hard for me to imagine anyone
complaining if 'pre-defined requirements for conducting public comments' are
simply extended to provide greater time.    

 

I echo the concerns about the 3x-yearly document drop on Councilors.  But I
am more concerned to keep moving forward on policy development rather than
focusing such immense amounts of time on restructure and process.  Policy
development is our primary job, and the ICANN community and broader public
expects it from us, in particular to help deal with immense harms enabled by
abusive domain registrations.  For many months there has been relatively
little policy development discussion on Council, and a large imbalance
towards process issues.  This is frustrating for those of us elected and
intending to push for policy development.  We should spend at least an equal
amount of time on policy development than on process, preferably the vast
majority of our time, even during this big structural and procedural
transition.

 

Thanks,

Mike

  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:10 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Council resolution regarding extension of public comment
periods

 

All,

 

The ICANN staff recognizes the intent behind this resolution and we will
begin to think through any implications associated with this recommendation.
As a threshold matter, it may be helpful to mention that many structures
within ICANN have pre-defined requirements for conducting public comments,
including the time frames required for soliciting public comment.  These
differ today by entity, many requirements are specified in various bylaws
provisions applicable to various structures, including requirements
applicable to Board-initiated solicitations for public comment.  The current
bylaws provisions applicable to GNSO Council-related solicitations for
public comment are specific to the GNSO Council.

 

Staff has also heard concerns from some Council members about the volume of
reports and materials produced by ICANN staff (and possibly working group
reports as well) just prior to and during ICANN meetings, because of the
challenges associated with reviewing and being prepared to comment on
late-breaking documents and reports.   For example, staff was directed to
complete the registration abuse issues report prior to the Cairo ICANN
meeting specifically so that the report could be discussed in Cairo, but,
understandably, many Council members were unable to read the report in time
for a timely discussion.  Thus, it may also be appropriate to consider
whether deadlines for other deliverables should also be extended accordingly
to further address Council member concerns.

 

Staff looks forward to discussing all this further with Council members.

 

Thanks, Liz